Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 14 September	16 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Kars[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not played in a league which meets #1 or #2, has no preeminent honours in the BeNe League to meet #3 and while he has played for the Netherlands, he has not done so in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship or the Olympics (qualifiers does not count), so therefore fails #6 as well. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and meets none of standards given in WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThOI Filias[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The club only played one season in the Cypriot Fourth Division which isn't a professional league. This also adds to the fact that their only potential appearance in a national cup didn't occur as they were one of two clubs that didn't compete in the Cypriot Cup for that season. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG. wikitigresito (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no indication that this club is notable. Rollidan (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Try to keep an open mind but I too see no indication that this club is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted after blanking by author. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Hoffman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Adequately sourced WP:BLP on a city council candidate. Per our longstanding precedent, articles on unelected candidates for political office should demonstrate WP:SIGCOV independent of their campaign, campaign-related coverage previously being held as WP:ROUTINE. All sources in this article relate to the candidate's political campaign. Chetsford (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting 11% of the primary vote for city council does not make you a politician, even if you whine about missing yard signs. Reywas92^Talk 00:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoffman is only one of 50 candidates seeking to fill 7 of 9 Seattle city council seats. Article seems to be in violation of WP's rule of not being seen as providing a platform to enhance any political candidate's public profile. All the hullabaloo surrounding the 8chan threats against Hoffman due to the Israeli flag hanging on his property was first publicized by MEMRI, a partisan advocacy org. StonyBrook (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Worshiper[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. ... discospinster _talk 21:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a film, not a short-- a made-up character by a single use account. As is clear from the text and edit history, this should have been speedy-deleted as a G3: blatant hoax. --Leflyman^Talk 22:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't know if its a hoax but its invisible to me with no sign of it at the youtube links and not even an entry at imdb, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk McDonough[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected and non notable figure. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for having been candidates in elections they did not win, but this is not demonstrating that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy: it states his role as the president of a short-lived defunct hockey league, but completely fails to show that he cleared WP:GNG for it by having had his work in that role written about in reliable source coverage. Rather, seven of the eight sources here are addressing his political activities, five of those are primary sources which are not support for notability at all while the other two are just local media offering general coverage of the election as a whole rather than devoting any attention specifically to McDonough himself, and the only source that has anything to do with hockey at all is another primary source offering technical self-published verification that he once held a different job short of his strongest potential notability claim. Literally none of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show a hell of a lot more reliable sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources available do not support notability of any sort. Rockphed (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is probably the most non-notable politican I have ever seen an article on, except that one guy who was a member of a neighborhood board.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Mountain Recording Studio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete. WP:CORPSPAM that fails to even cite the usual crop of press-releases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Witch & Wizard — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch & Wizard: The Fire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party coverage found and none provided in article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for Witch & Wizard series books:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I found so far is this [1] from Publishers Weekly. The Guardian reviewed two other books of his in this series, but not this one. Dream Focus 17:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James_Patterson_bibliography#Witch_and_Wizard_series. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch & Wizard: The Kiss, there is not much in the way of reliable sources for this book, but it would make a useful redirect to James Patterson's bibliography, where it is already listed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with James Patterson - the article on Witch & Wizard: The Fire is only a brief one, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would actually recommend that if this is merged and redirected, that this go to the article for the first book, Witch & Wizard. The first book looks like it should be notable and it has some information on the other books in the series, so this would work better as a redirect. TBH, I would recommend turning the main book page into somewhat of a series page since that would help make the information flow a little better since the other books will be redirected there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ReaderofthePack, I agree with this suggestion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my general draft of what the series page would look like, minus the image (since it's copyrighted). If everyone is OK with this, I'll move it over. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ReaderofthePack, I think we should wait until these AFDs are over to avoid any confusion. You may wanna merge Book 1 and 4 too. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. In any case, I was planning on having all of the pages redirect to the main article, which would be turned into a series page. Individually they all have some issues with sourcing or finding sourcing (with the exception of perhaps the first book) but as a series they would be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ReaderofthePack, sounds good. Merge all 4 articles into this main one. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, the other witch and wizard afd was closed as redirect to author page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Witch & Wizard per ReaderofthePack.4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation, still in fundamentally advertorial rather than encyclopedic form and still based primarily on bad sources rather than reliable ones, of articles about a filmmaker and his films that were deleted several months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). Although they've been rewritten sufficiently that I don't feel comfortable speedying them as G4s, they're still written more like university film studies essays than encyclopedia articles, and are still "referenced" mainly to primary sources, such as unpublished essays stored in PDF format in the subject's own self-published website, rather than reliable sources that would properly establish his notability.

The few genuinely reliable sources here are not about Costa or his films at all, but are present mainly to verify tangential information about other people who have nothing whatsoever to do with Costa's notability -- for example, the fact that one of his films premiered at the same film festival as unrelated films by Sofia Coppola and Jim Jarmusch is referenced to a news article about the Jarmusch film which completely fails to mention Costa at all, and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing Costa as notable. Furthermore, the thing that ultimately got the articles deleted the first time was that they all represented Costa's own conflict of interest attempt to promote himself and his work by writing the articles himself — and the creator of these new versions is very likely Costa again (or perhaps somebody else he hired to put his own preferred versions back into Wikipedia for him), as he has a known SPI-confirmed pattern of creating new sockpuppets to reinsert the exact same problematic content that got him editblocked on prior occasions.

As I said the first time, the key to getting him back into Wikipedia is for a neutral party without a COI to write the articles encyclopedically and source them reliably, but neither of those words describe these articles, and Costa still isn't entitled to use Wikipedia to distribute his own self-published autobiographical content about himself. A dose of WP:SALT may also be necessary this time, if he's going to keep doing this. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is Draft:Ricardo Costa to be considered bundled for deletion? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should also be deleted, but as a page that's in draftspace rather than mainspace it's not for AFD to decide. It would have to either be speedied after this discussion ends on ADVERT grounds, or separately listed for its own MFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure about deletion yet, but the BIO is full of sycophantic bloat and should be at least stubbified. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not seeing notability (WP:FILMMAKER) here. If someone showed me I'm wrong, then stubification to erase the horrible jargon-ridden OR in place now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hell no. Pretentious twaddle like this has no place in a credible encyclopedia, or a credible anything. Plus obvious sock and g5. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This issue concerning Bearcat’s personal attacks has no consequences? If so, how is that possible? ”Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party).” Lusouser (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "conflict of interest" or "non-neutrality" issue here; I've got nothing against you beyond your attempts to use unreliable primary sourcing to support advertorialized content about yourself and your opinions about your own work, and my only "involvement" here is making sure, in my role as a Wikipedia administrator, that Wikipedia's rules are followed and respected and maintained. You do have a conflict of interest, however, as you are not allowed to write about yourself in Wikipedia, or to self-publish your own sources about yourself in lieu of any independent sourcing. If the articles were written objectively and referenced reliably and formatted properly, I would have no issue with them whatsoever: the issue is not that I have anything against you personally, it's that the articles are not complying with our rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky–Mississippi State football rivalry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really that much of a rivalry. p b p 15:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would think that for a rivalry to be notable, there should be sources which specifically discuss the two teams as having a rivalry. I didn't check all the cited sources, but of the sources I checked, none of them specifically mentioned a rivalry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per other delete votes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Just because two teams are in the same conference and therefore play each other annually does not make them "rivals". Nothing presented suggested that they are, indeed, "rivals". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an actual rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is a real rivalry. Trillfendi (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. There are no reliable sources that actually mention a 'rivalry.' Taewangkorea (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Does not meet GNG since no source even mentions the topic of the article. Think it is snowing here. J 947^{'s public account} 23:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topcic not supported by sources. Not only fails GNG and WP:V, this is also WP:synthesis. Snows gettin' deep. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to a lack of sources that this is a rivalry, anecdotally, I graduated from UK and never once heard it called as such. - Amatheur (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This game is a big deal to both Mississippi State and Kentucky fans and players. The games are hard-fought and memorable.Jhn31 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian Saiu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely fails WP:NPROF. Creator disagrees (post on my talk page). Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I received your message for proposed deletion of a page I created: Octavian_Saiu. Given the number of references on Google Scholar, as well as JSTOR, news, newspapers and general Google results, I believe Octavian Saiu meets the required criteria for notability. Saiu is recognised as the most important Romanian theatre critic and scholar of his generation. He is also one of the most significant cultural animators of the global theatrical scene, as chair and speaker at key events such as Sibiu International Theatre Festival, Edinburgh International Festival, Festival of Tokyo and many others. He has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity: through his books and multiple public talks, conferences and dialogues. If required, he may be presented as "public intelectual" and animator rather than "academic" or "theatre critic". Therefore, as requested, I have added new references regarding his rich activity in the Career section and various external links. Could you please advise on how to further improve the page? Also, I hope you agree that the proposed deletion template can now be removed.Allthedots (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage I am seeing is WP:MILL. I don't see a claim in the article that indicates passing WP:NPROF. Rockphed (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated above, the entire article presents Octavian Saiu's broad activity as the most important Romanian theatre critic and scholar of his generation. His published works are an essential source of information for students and professionals alike, as they offer a clear and comprehensive perspective of the global theatrical scene. His critical thinking has gained the utmost respect at an international level, a fact reflected in his constant presence at the most prestigious theatre festivals in the world (i.e. Edinburgh International Festival, Sibiu International Theatre Festival, Wuzhen International Theatre Festival) and in the conferences he has conducted (with renowned artists from all around the world). Moreover, in 2013, he received the Award of the Union of Theatre Artists (UNITER) - the highest honor in Romania for theatre critics. Based on the facts that are clearly referenced in the article, he fulfils the criteria: ”has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” and ”has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level” from WP:NPROF. Allthedots (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speaking at conferences is business as usual for most academics, even many grad students speak at several during their studies. The awards he received don't have their own Wikipedia articles and there there is no indication they are actually not niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Speaking at conferences" is one thing, speaking at conferences as keynote and plenary speaker is another. Also, to give talks in front of a paying audience - as he did recently in Tokyo - is definitely totally different than "business as usual": http://www.theaterx.jp/19/190913-190915p.php. The UNITER Award is the most important theatre award in Romania, and its description on Wikipedia or the lack thereof is not an essential argument. That applies to many national and even international theatre awards. As an example, let me refer to Interpretacie Festival in Katowice. It's a major theatre event in Poland - and incidentally Saiu was a jury member there, in 2014, together with Teresa Budzisz–Krzyzanowska and Grzegorz Jarzyna - but it doesn't exist on Wikipedia. So, should we discount the awards received there by important Polish theatre artists? Allthedots (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Allthedots: While it is not a definite test, whether something (a festival or an award) exists on Wikipedia or not is a decent test of whether something is important. If an award, for example, does not exist on Wikipedia, it is a good sign (of course, not fullproof) it is a very niche one, ditto for festival. Think about it: Wikipedia is almost 20 years old, if during that time nobody bothered to write up an entry on such items, the odds are good they are really very minor. Anyway, I can speak Polish and actually K-ce is my hometown. I looked at pl:Kategoria:Festiwale teatralne w Polsce, which lists few dozens of theater festivals in Poland, but it does not have an entry for the one you mention. Now, in all honestly, it probably is no less notable that some other entries there, and I see some sources one could use to stub it ([2], [3]), but this is hardly a word-class event. It is a minor, local event, and being a keynote speaker there is not something that contributes to notability. In fact, being a keynote speaker is IMHO not contributing to notability ever, not unless it generates significant coverage, and more than once to avoid WP:ONEEVENT type of issues. Śo, I am sorry, but no, I am still not convinced that the subject is doing anything above average. Again, as an academic, he needs to pass WP:NPROF, and that requires more than small number of citations and some very niche keynotes and such. Let's be realistic here: the subject is ~40 years old, that's way WP:TOOSOON in academia for someone to be generally considered important. There are exceptions, academia stars with major awards and news coverage, but I am afraid the subject is not one yet. Perhaps in 20 years? -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus:

I am afraid that we do not have the same understanding of notability in the theatre field. So, let me sum up:
- the page Octavian Saiu presents the activity of a professional theatre critic and scholar, an activity that is very well referenced from external sources (not only Wikipedia as this is not a mandatory criteria).
- Saiu is recognised as one of the most important Romanian theatre critics and scholars - fact that is easily proven by the references I just mentioned - and as I said in the first place: If required, he may be presented as "public intellectual" and animator rather than "academic" or "theatre critic"
- as I also wrote before, he is one of the most significant cultural animators of the global theatrical scene, as chair and speaker at key events such as Sibiu International Theatre Festival, Edinburgh International Festival, Festival of Tokyo, Wuzhen Theatre Festival - these are not just key events, but some of the most important theatre festivals in the world.
- as written on the page he has hosted cultural conversations with Tim Robbins, Jin Xing, Neil LaBute, Ohad Naharin, Jaroslaw Fret, Mao Weitao, Stan Lai, Stanley Wells and many others - therefore, we cannot say that he was involved in just one event - the Festival in Katowice was an example which is actually not mentioned on the page, but it is an important festival where all the major Polish theatre directors participate.
- speaking of the published books, that are mostly in Romanian - unfortunately, there are very few digital archives in Romania, so the search for citations online does not represent a valid tool. Not to mention the fact that MA and PhD theses, which include references to his works, are not digitally archived either
- The International Association of Theatre Critics can be easily found here: https://aict-iatc.org/en/ - and it is a most important international organization with sections all over the world. IATC was UNESCO affiliated, and the number one partner of ITI - UNESCO - yes, there is no Wikipedia page, but their activity is essential in every large-scale theatre event.
- the UNITER Prize is the most important theatre award in Romania - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNITER.
- in terms of WP:TOOSOON, I don't think age is a criteria, just because someone is young that doesn't mean that he has not made an impact. His experience goes back for more than 15 years and that, I believe, is more important.

Being a theatre professional myself, I sincerely don't understand why all of this is not considered notable. Having witnessed many of Saiu's events (including book launches, conferences, dialogues), I must say that he is a living talent, highly appreciated by many at an international level, who has developed, very early, a unique career, that cannot be easily framed or reviewed through criteria. However, the number of reliable references is quite large.
With all due respect, this debate seems to be affected by many cultural prejudices, of different kinds.
Maybe, it would have been useful to offer me some advice on how to further improve the page, rather than dismantling all the arguments.

Thank you, Allthedots (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, this is your view. You say he is most important, most significant... but where are reliable sources saying so? If he is so important, other scholars should have written a monograph about him,or at least an article. We are not a place to assert one's notability, we just repeat what other sources say, and so far, they say very little about the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with claim that sources are WP:MILL. I can't check sources in Romanian language. But his book production, his positions in the International Association of Theatre Critics (IATC) and what I interpret as significant involvement in international events abroad make him a quite likely pass for WP:GNG in Romania. Keep rationale partly leans on WP:BIAS. Article could be somewhat pruned with more arms-length coverage. Have no interest in the article myself. MrCleanOut (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrCleanOut: He does seem to be writing a lot of books. But their impact is very small, GScholar has best cited by 17, most by <5: [4]. As for International Association of Theatre Critics, I'd be more inclined to consider this if over the 20 years of Wikipedia history someone bothered to at least stub the entry for this organization. Lack of entry suggests (through is not a sure proof of) lack of significance and notability of such an organization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saiu passes the WP:GNG in my opinion based on the cited references. On a side note, the IATC (a branch on UNESCO) is the main professional organization of theater critics in the world, and is the parent organization of pretty much all major theater critics organizations internationally, including the American Theatre Critics Association.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure that being a "President of the Romanian Section – Theatre Studies of IATC" is sufficient here, for example being a temporary section head for the International Sociological Association wouldn't, IMHO, be sufficient to make a sociologist notable (that's to take an example from my field). I'll ping User:Randykitty and User:DGG who often have valuable input in the case of academic topics and their notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The critics associations for each country are themselves notable because they basically act like unions in European countries because the theaters are owned and operated by the government. The critics association often gets involved in protecting the legal interests of critics when in comes intellectual property right, contract negotiations, protecting speech, legal aid, and works as a mediator when issues of nationally internal significance come up. So while the international organization is important, the individual national organizations are just as important because every country's laws are different and critics face different problems in different countries.4meter4 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if I take your word that this is true for all countries (in my experience, mileage in this, i.e. activities of national chapters of such organizations, vary a lot), notability is not inherited. And he is not a president of the Romanian chapter but 'Adjunct Secretary General', which frankly sounds too verbose to suggest it is a serious position. And even if he was the president, it's not like such a position is sufficient to guarantee notability. In the end, it all boils down to simple questions like 'did he receive any independent press coverage in this role'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep article suffers somewhat from WP:PEACOCK, but I suspect that might be due to recent changes following the deletion tagging. Applying WP:PROF exclusively somewhat unfair given subject's activities, aspects of WP:ENT are relevant (eg unique contribution), what pushes it over the line for me is the UNITER award - which qualifies as professional recognition by peers.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Goldsztajn: The problem is that neither Award of the Union of Theatre Artists nor the Union of Theatre Artists appear significant. Red flag of not getting even a stub for close to 20 years of Wikipedia history even for the parent organization is an issue. But let's assume the organization is important (frankly, I'd think it likely is notable) - can you find a single source that declares "Award of the Union of Theatre Artists" to be significant? Google search for "Award of the Union of Theatre Artists" gives ~600 hits, and zero in newspapers or books... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. His works have minimal citation counts, nor do I see reviews of his books. All academics publish, that is not what makes them notable. What makes them notable is if those publications are noted (which can be measured by reviews or citations). Being president of a local branch of an international organization is not really what PROF means with "highest elected position". Nor am I convinced that the awards listed are notable and that they are important enough to confer notability according to PROF. The article also suffers from some promotionalism and if it is kept then the list of publications should be shortened severely, WP is not ResearchGate or LinkedIn. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He can qualify as either an academic or as a dance professional-.In general, WP:PROF says we judge academics who work in the performing or creative arts according to the standards in their crreative filed, as they are not expected to produce peer-reviewed publications. But an academic in those fields who does have a research doctorate, and does produce academic work, will be judged as an academic. (There is also the intermediatestatus of working specifically as a theatre critic or cultural participant, which basically goes into the GNG category for want of anything specific. , Looking at the publications, he's an academic, writing not about current productions, but upon modern classic works and related theoretical topics. I have no basis for judging the importance of Bulgarian books. and periodicals, certainly not in this field. But WorldCat shows that the only book of his translated into English is in only 4 libraries. Google Scholar is hard to use in the humanities, as the numbers of citation to analyze is typically much lower. But the only item cited more than 7 times is a book The International Reception of Samuel Beckett, wherehe is only one of a numberof contributors, and the whole book, not his chapter, is what is being cited.

The "career" section of our article is promotional padding andname dropping, and would be judged as that for any person in any field in any country" Throughout the years, he has hosted cultural conversations with Tim Robbins[20], Jin Xing[21], Neil LaBute[22], Ohad Naharin[23], Jaroslaw Fret[24], Mao Weitao[25], Stan Lai[26], Stanley Wells[27] and many others." is an example. When it's borderline notability , promotionalism settles the issue.

This is one of the cases wheee someone can be important in the academic world within a particular country without being noticed elsewhere. Our standard view of this is that notability under WP:PROF is international, with a single world-wide standard. I'd make exceptions for those who are studying something intrinsic to a country or region where the only place or publication will be that country , but most of his work is on international topics--even Ionesco wrote in French, not Romanian. . DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll just add that it is possible for a scholar to be notable nationally, for example if his work would become subject of study by another Romanian scholars, even if not a peep of this would appear in English. For example, consider Leszek Gondek, who IMHO is notable because some other Polish scholars published a chapter about him in some book (even if it is super niche work). This, nonetheless, shows that some other scholars in the field consider work of another significant. Nothing like this is, however, present here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: @Randykitty and Randykitty: I have specified very clearly that we are not merely talking about a typical academic, but a theatre critic and intellectual who has been a driving force in many prominent international cultural events. If we think about it, Neil LaBute or Tim Robbins would not accept to have public dialogues with just anybody. Also, not all of his activities are listed online. Why? Because theatre as a field is about "here and now", and interest for online archiving is often minimal. Furthermore, not all that is valuable is quantifiable in terms of online quotations and links. You also know that the opposite perspective is equally valid: so many things that are temporarily covered by dozens of websites may simply not be worthy of substantial attention.

Regarding his role in the International Association of Theatre Critics, he is the Adjunct Secretary General of the international organization and the President of the Romanian Section – Theatre Studies of IATC - so, he holds both an international and national position.
As stated above, he meets the WP:GNG criteria - maybe another category should be chosen, like ”cultural animator”, for example, instead of Academic, taking into consideration the specificity of his profile.Allthedots (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Please refer to WP:ITSIMPORTANT and Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone, or make the case they are important. If as you say, theater studies don't publish verifiable documents, well, they are not going to be represented in Wikipedia until they decide to change their attitude. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lavender Castle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lavender Castle characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvment. While lists do not require references, nor do they require that their components be notable, this list appears to be made up of entirely WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Lavender Castle, leaving out the OR. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...this list appears to be made up of entirely WP:OR." @Onel5969:: What is your basis for saying that? Please elaborate. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely zero sourcing, and it while it was pulled from the parent article, it was completely unsourced there as well. I prodded, hoping the editor who split the article (without proper attribution as per WP:SPLIT), would provide sourcing, but they simply removed the prod tag. While there isn't a lot of sourcing for this show's characters, there was one source I found, here, but as you can see it doesn't nearly contain as much information as is in this list. If this becomes a redirect to the article, this information shouldn't be merged back into that article, as it is unsourced, and once removed, shouldn't be re-entered into the article without valid sourcing as per WP:UNSOURCED.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of that establishes that it is OR, let alone that it is unverifiable. I instead think you are not understanding what OR is or what is reasonable when we are describing the content of a work of fiction. A primary source is the most reliable source for descriptive statements about its own content. Based on your familiarity with the subject matter, is there any content in the list that is not directly sourceable to the series, and instead veers beyond mere description into opinion or interpretation?
And looking at the parent article's edit history, this was just split yesterday, and could have just as easily have been reverted back. You honestly thought an AFD was the best response to that, instead of just reverting it, if you thought it should not have been split or was done improperly? You didn't even attempt any talk page discussion. This nomination is a failure of WP:BEFORE, not to mention WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD.
In conclusion, keep or merge; describing the characters of a notable series is a standard element of coverage, and the appropriate level of detail and sourcing is a matter for normal editing to resolve here, without arbitrary deadline or threat of a deletion axe. postdlf (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lavender Castle - the article on Lavender Castle already has a sub-heading Lavender Castle characters. Vorbee (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lavender Castle per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffe Otieno[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY, failing both requirements. Nothing notable in Google (and GNews), zero significant coverage and does not meet WP:GNG. qedk (t 桜 c) 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per WP:NFOOTY, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". While he currently plays in the Kenyan National Super League, which is only semi-professional, according to its page, he also played in the top Kenyan league while he was with the F.C. Kariobangi Sharks. This is specifically mentioned in the article and there are several citations to back it up.^[1]^[2]. It seems to me that he manages to clear the second criterion quite easily. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PraiseVivec: No, he does not meet the criterion. The second criterion specifically states that the footballer has to be in a fully-professional league as classified at WP:FPL, and as you will see, the top league itself is not listed as fully professional. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Magak, Chrisphine (12 March 2017). "Kariobangi Sharks name squad for Gor Mahia clash". Goal.com. Retrieved 15 September 2019.
^ Kiura, Alfred (6 March 2017). "Sharks release team for debut season". Futaa.com. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find any sources that meet GNG, just brief mentions. – Levivich 02:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehorse Curling Club[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sports club. It gets some passing local press coverage, but there's no sign of the broad in-depth coverage in several significant, independent, reliable and secondary sources required by WP:NCORP. Article created by a now-indeffed paid editor, appears to be undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wasn't able to find any significant coverage dealing with the subject of the page and despite the fact that I believe it would make a killer name for a rock band, the Whitehorse Curling Club has got to go, as it fails to clear WP:NCORP. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is by far the most important curling club in the Yukon, and has sent countless teams to national championships including the Brier and Scotties Tournament of Hearts, the most important curling tournaments in the world.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that anyone outside of Whitehorse Yukon even knows this club exists (aside from the 4 of us who have now participated in this AfD). Earl Andrew, do you have any evidence that they have sent "countless teams" to national championships? Because I didn't see any in my online search. Rockphed (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an archive of Curling Canada's major competitions. Click on almost any of the results and the team from the Yukon (if there is one) will almost always be from this club.-- Earl Andrew - talk 01:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NCURLING says that athletes who participate in the Briar or the Tournament of Hearts are presumed notable, but it does not apply to the clubs from whence those athletes come. Looking at The Brier, I am not even convinced that participating there is a good indicator of passing GNG since many of the athlete names are red links, and that is just on the top 2 or 3 teams. On my lookthrough of possible sources, I found a few local pieces (at places like "whatsupyukon") and some passing mentions (I didn't find the one you show, but it is also a passing reference). I stand by my implication that nobody outside of Whitehorse Yukon would do anything except blink in confusion at hearing this name. Rockphed (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neither of the keep arguments city any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hanadi Elyan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film directors are not always automatically notable just because their films exist. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the fact that "film directors are not always automatically notable just because their films exist", but in this particular case, the young director who is the subject of the article did receive significant coverage, way beyond what other film directors who made a couple of shorts, have received. She was extensively interviewed on the BBC 5 radio show Up All Night (radio show)^[1], profiled in several publications associated with he University of California^[2]^[3]. She is at the beginning of her career for sure, but she's far from being the unknown amateur that the deletion proposal makes her out to be. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bowes, Peter. "June 25, 2019 - Hanadi Elyan". Peterbowes.com. Retrieved 15 September 2019.
^ Devjani, Raunak (5 February 2017). "Grad student melds Arab, Hollywood culture through filmmaking". Daily Bruin. Retrieved 15 September 2019.
^ Kendall, Rebecca (10 June 2019). "Graduating filmmaker strives to tell authentic stories of Arab women". UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

All the sources you mentioned above are interviews that are not considered independent reliable sources as required by GNG and she has done nothing notable that make her pass WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..and what made you believe that? GSS (talk|c|em) 07:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The articles from university newspapers are too closely tied to the subject to be considered independent of the subject when it comes to evaluating notability. University publications often promote or review student work (such as music recitals and art shows by graduating students), and while this is verifiable, it is not notable. The Up All Night interview does lend some notability, but not enough to meet the threshold required by GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR - no awards of any significance, inclusion in a minor film festival, no *significant* coverage in WP:RS, quite possibly in future a film-maker of note, but not at present--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - I don't see the necessary sources to meet WP:BIO. WP:TOOSOON. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the unreliable sources cover her deeply, but the reliable sources hardly mention her. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TOOSOON. Tone 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi Ichikawa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub in JP wiki, definitely WP:TOOSOON. Subject has nothing substantial to write about, nor does he have enough siginificant roles. When will people learn that having well-referenced paragraphs is less likely gonna have their articles AFDed? Let's go ahead and write one liner stubs on every seiyu ever, shall we? Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eita Izum is the main character of Just Because!. Seiya Takehaya is a main character of Tsurune. The voice actor passes the subject specific guideline for voice actors Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Dream Focus 16:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the subject passes WP:ENT. Only 2 major roles? That's it? That's hardly notable. At least have 3. And even then, that doesn't mean notability is guaranteed. I'll give you Seiya, since Tsurune is a KyoAni anime, and their shows are notable. Just Because isn't that notable, by comparison. But even if you count both shows, that's hardly enough. What about WP:BASIC? How is this any different than a filmography dump? Isn't there anything to write about other than just that one line?

PS: JA wiki article is also a stub. The subject is clearly not encyclopedia worthy. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple is defined as: consisting of, including, or involving more than one [5]. Two is more than one, that all it needs. And if the shows are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they are notable enough to count. Notability has been established by them having their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really low bar you're setting here. If 2 major roles is all it takes to secure their own article, then we wouldn't have that many AFDs for voice actors. I'm not seeing any news articles that feature the subject. There's simply nothing to write about other than that one line. This isn't a voice actor article; it's just a filmography dump pretending to be one. Sk8erPrince (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of AFDs for voice actors that end up kept for this reason, and its been like that for years. As long as they meet the requirement, their article is kept. And shortness of an article is never been a valid reason to delete the article. Dream Focus 19:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong. WP:ENT is usually the **additional** criteria that helps the subject secure their own article, when the subject already meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Also, it's usually only valid when there's 3 or more main roles. For this subject, there are no reviews about their roles, nor are there any news articles. There's *nothing* to write about. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability is quite clear. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" One or the other, doesn't have to meet both. I have no idea why some people get that confused at times, but I've been in plenty of AFDs, and if it passes just the subject specific notability guideline then the article gets kept. And its valid if there are two or more, that's what multiple means as I said, so making up some arbitrary number and claiming the rules don't apply if you decide they shouldn't, doesn't really amount to anything. Dream Focus 15:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "arbitrary" numbers. You say that only 2 main roles is enough merit for a voice actor to have their own article, but *nowhere* in the WP:ENT guideline can I see 2 as a minimum. I'd say it should be 3 or more because that's usually the case in VA AFDs. It's a consistent pattern. And even then, that does *not* guarantee inclusion.

Also, if you don't mind reading WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. From the same guideline: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. This is what I am talking about when it's regarding the fact that there is practically nothing to write about for this subject. So yes, the lack of material to write about the subject *does* matter. It's not something I've made up.

Quoting WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. You say that the subject is presumed notable because he meets WP:ENT, but that is just a presumption, not a guarantee, which I will elaborate below.

I hate to break it to you, but WP:ENT is listed under additional criteria. See for yourself. Also, quoting "Additional criteria": People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. See? There is no guarantee, especially if the subject does not even meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I've said my piece. I will now wait for other users to chime in. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 18:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, Assistant is the main male character in Magical Sempai, and Pele in Plunderer so that makes at least 3. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plunderer is not out yet, and we still don't have anything to write about the subject. One liner stubs violate WP:WHYN as outlined above. It's one thing if there's actually *something* to write about to improve the article so that it's no longer a stub, but this is clearly not the case here, when the JA article is also a stub. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to Draft~~Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Needs some featured articles about the person, not just cast listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. This should be deleted. Someone who really wants to make a worthy article for the person can draft one from scratch that will have RS articles to significantly cover this person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, draftify, or redirect I don't think it really matters which one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Pal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total promo. Fails WP:GNG Beasteggs (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just carefully read the WP:GNG guidelines and I believe Pal is definitely notable according to those guidelines. I just added more information to the article with additional reliable secondary sources that are completely independent of the subject, to back up this assertion. A perusal of the sources clearly establishes that there is significant coverage of his role as an important voice in the world of economic and financial analysis, whose opinions are sought after, as well as the creator of an innovative source of financial information, Real Vision television. The guidelines for notability conclude that the presence of "significant,independent, reliable, secondary-source coverage" does not "guarantee" notability but does allow the "presumption" of it. Thank you for considering my viewpoint. Melinda Rawling (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 23:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked for more and better sources, and found a lot. It seems we all agree that the sources are reliable, independent and secondary. Our dispute is what makes the coverage significant. I would like to argue that if someone is frequently mentioned in reliable sources, or is the subject of many articles in reliable sources, or is interviewed frequently, then, according to Wikipedia's standards, he is notable. Reliable sources seem interested, so shouldn't Wikipedia also be interested? I am going on the talk page to list all the sources I found, and will also try and add them to the article when relevant. It seems however, on the WP:GNG page that "Article content does not determine notability: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." I apologize for the long quote, but I was not sure how else to bring your attention to this paragraph. Thanks so much. Melinda Rawling (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Looking at the current sourcing, there are lots of articles that parrot his words, there are a couple intros to quoting him about something else, and there is a half-way puff piece from Forbes. Rockphed (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if it were better sourced, I'd include it, but right now, the article is full of claims with very poor and shallow sourcing. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Excellent sources recently added by Melinda Rawling on September 22 from The New York Times, Forbes, etc. have put this article into good standing. Nice work! To the closer, the article has substantially changed since the sources were added. Please take that into account, in case reviewers don't bother to come back to the article and re-evaluate. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete struggles to pass WP:GNG when one considers the *significant* part of "significant coverage", it's important not to conflate frequency with significance; the former is a quantitative measure, the latter is qualitative. Being a talking head in a news program is not enough to establish notability. The point of WP:CONTN is it applies both ways, no amount of trivial, WP:PROMO additions to an article will change a subject's lack of notability. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is some coverage there but a substantial number of references are junk, name drops, routine coverage, headlines. I don't see a lot of depth and good secondary sources to support what's there. At least 26 could go as they are junk.scope_creep^Talk 22:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's not unanimou, but there is consensus that the sourcing is not good enough for an article. The text can be userfied and/or restored if more sources appear. I'd like to commend everybody for the scholarly and constructive discussion. Sandstein 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Gambril Nicholson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A schoolteacher who wrote some "love" poetry about the boys he taught. The references do not establish notability; all but one either do not mention this person or only do so in passing. The nature of the Love in earnest source is unclear and it could not be followed up on, but it seems it may just be a brief mention. A search for new sources did not turn up "significant coverage in multiple...secondary sources that are reliable" as WP:NBIO requires. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Timothy D'Arch Smith's work on Nicholson appears to be fringe scholarship. D'Arch Smith was a contributor[6] to the International Journal of Greek Love(AfD), published by the paederasty advocate and convicted sex offender Walter H. Breen. According to this article by D.H. Mader (himself a NAMBLA supporter, "boy-love" advocate, and photographer of nude children), Breen first advanced the notion of a "Victorian Paidophilic Poetaster Clique" in 1964 and D'Arch Smith built on the idea in his 1970 work Love in Earnest, coining the term "Uranian poetry" (here using "uranian" not in the Ulrichs sense, but as a stand-in for "paederastic"). Google snippet searches of Love in Earnest yield lines which, devoid of context, appear to be fringe advocacy, like:
- (on child pornography): "Photographs of the orgies held on the ship, a little dulled by time and persistent copying, still circulate in some coteries."
- "If there is a tragedy in Uranian affections, it is not the crime of a man's preventing a boy's development of his natural instincts towards the opposite sex, but the hopelessly onesided adoration of the man for the boy whose young and immature mind cannot intellectually or emotionally ..."
- "It must be confessed, too, that there is a certain freshness in the Uranians' insistence on the superiority of adolescent male beauty ..."
  Another of D'Arch Smith's works on the "Uranians" was published in the notorious pro-pedophilia anthology "The Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People". There, he says:

Extended content

Shot through with simple yearnings – analogy with the negro blues not too far-fetched, both reflecting the discontents of an outcast people – it was permeated with longings for the poets’ lost boyhood; with regrets for the briefness of boyhood’s span; with declarations of the supremacy of Uranian love over other manifestations of affection; its, as it were, rightness.
As might be expected, dissatisfactions outweighed euphoria. Celebrations of untroubled and untrammelled love affairs were few and far between. With admirable stoicism, however, the Uranians were able to console themselves with very little: a boy seen in the street, the sound of a treble voice, glimpses of bare flesh at a bathing place, and on occasions, a kiss. Hard won, of rare occurrence, these to the Uranians were riches indeed.
...The uniqueness of the Uranians’ ideal lay in their single-minded tenet that society should discard the socially acceptable prerogative of parenthood and allow them to take from a boy such love as he has had, in the past, to reserve for his father and mother at a time in his life when he most needs a trusted adult guide outside the confines of home and school.
...the Uranians maintained that the very nature of male-to-male experience of sex, with its unwritten code of impermanence, was not callous or immoral but altogether harmless. It was their bravery in throwing down this challenge which demands our attention.

I've searched for other coverage of Nicholson and found mainly other pedophilia advocacy sources, plus one 1978 article by David Hall in The Book Collector which might possibly represent mainstream scholarship.paywall snippet view. Cheers, gnu 57 08:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's probably notable. Snippet view on Google Books shows a chapter is devoted to Nicholson in The Joy of Bad Verse (1988). Also two pages in Gay Novels of Britain, Ireland and the Commonwealth, 1881-1981: A Reader's Guide and I can view those pages in full on Google Books. These are not mere mentions in passing. Plenty of other hits on ProQuest, Google Books and Google Scholar including discourse on Nicholson's possible influence on Oscar Wilde. Also note the incoming link from The Importance of Being Earnest and several other articles. Haukur (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of Bad Verse appears to be a book making fun of bad poetry. [7] I can't view it, but I don't know if it constitutes significant coverage. As for the Gay Novels... source, it's really two half-pages, and only one paragraph is about Nicholson (the rest is about one of his works). Also, it's published by McFarland, who don't seem too selective in what they publish, considering they have books on things like parapsychology. [8] You mention other hits, but I looked twice for sources significantly covering this person and did not find any. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's about bad verse but being noted for bad verse is still being noted and this does appear to go into a lot of detail and analysis. If you search for 'Nicholson' on the page you linked to you'll see what I mean. Should we see if anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can get us the relevant pages? As for the other source, you're right that a lot of it is on a book by Nicholson but that still counts for our purposes since authors WP:INHERIT notability from their works. Haukur (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to check there, go ahead. WP:INHERIT seems to say the opposite - that notability is not inherited. All I'm seeing so far are sources that are either unreliable or are insignificant coverage. Even if we grant the "bad poetry" source, which is not certain, we need multiple such quality sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:INHERIT somewhat cheekily but note the "do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances" sentence which applies to authors. Anyway, I'll see if anyone can help is with that bad poetry resource. I still think the Gay Novels source is a non-trivial WP:RS as well. Haukur (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the sources that Haukurth points to, there's also some discussion of Nicholson in the introduction to Brian Reade, Sexual Heretics: Male Homosexuality in English Literature from 1850–1900, and several of his poems are anthologised in that work, and several mentions of him in Brian Taylor, "Motives for Guilt-Free Pederasty: Some Literary Considerations" in The Sociological Review. I'm leaning keep. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for all he may have been associated with Breen (which is, ugh, not a good look) I am not convinced that D'Arch Smith is really fringe. Love in Earnest is cited by respectable scholars such as Rictor Norton (in Myth of the Modern Homosexual) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Taylor was allegedly a research director for the Paedophile Information Exchange under a pseudonym. "Motives for Guilt-Free Pederasty" also cites Breen (as "Eglinton"), Ken Plummer, and Mader, and includes lines like "Quite apart from the emotive, and often erroneous use of the terms 'victim' and 'assault' [FOOTNOTE: West notes how 'many of the children who fall victim to sexual offences have laid themselves open to advances by their coy provocative behaviour'...]..." Cheers, gnu 57 14:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sexual Heretics source doesn't include any information about Nicholson, just a few of his poems and a name drop. The Brian Taylor source is junk as gnu57 explained. I think the evidence that the D'Arch Smith source is mostly fringe advocacy is strong, and managing to get cited by Norton doesn't disprove that. For a similar example of someone getting mainstream citations to support some things, but otherwise engaging in fringe advocacy, see Rind et al. controversy. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sexual Heretics has three paragraphs of discussion of Nicholson in the introduction, which is non-trivial. This includes mention of a review of his 1892 book in The Hobby Horse, which would itself count towards notability. Haukur (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crossroads1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can write off Love in Earnest as a source counting towards notability. It was published by a mainstream academic publisher and has more than a hundred citations listed on Google Scholar. Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia calls it an "important study" (p. 908). Of course, we don't have to accept it as a source for whatever non-mainstream views appear in it. Haukur (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long review of Nicholson's book by Charles Edward Sayle: Sayle, C. (October 1892). "A New Poet". The Hobby Horse: 128–138. [9] Haukur (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough significant sources, the article uses primary sources far too much. It clearly violates what encyclopedia articles should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there are a couple of sources that require more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some more sources. Here's Fone, Byrne R. S. 1995. A Road to Stonewall, p. 116: "The silence imposed by homophobia and the need to declare the nature of desire intersect in Nicholson's poem "I Love Him Wisely" (1892) and produce a small but telling masterpiece: I love him wisely if I love him well [14 lines are quoted] "The prudent distance that the speaker keeps between himself and the man he loves is a gulf across which the strong current of sexual desire arcs like an electric charge." Nicholson is also mentioned on pages 94, 95 and 170. On page 287 there's a bibliographic essay which approvingly mentions Love in Earnest: "For the study of nineteenth-century English homoerotic texts, the following should be consulted by any student: Timothy d'Arch Smith's Love in Earnest..." This sort of WP:USEBYOTHERS shows that Love in Earnest cannot be ruled out as a source. Haukur (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think we should keep since there is plenty of coverage. For WP:THREE I'd nominate a) Love in Earnest (1970) by d'Arch Smith which is a book-length study that features Nicholson prominently and has him on the cover.[10] Whatever can be said about d'Arch Smith and however distasteful some of his views may have been, his book is routinely cited, and even praised, by other researchers of gay literature. b) The Joy of Bad Verse (1988) by Parsons which has a ~~long~~ chapter (pp. 282–291) devoted to analyzing Nicholson's works.[11] c) A highly detailed review of Nicholson's first book in The Hobby Horse (1892) by Sayle. [12] Haukur (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now have the chapter by Parsons. It has nine pages of poems and commentary, most of it on Garland and Chaplet. There's some useful information in there (like: "Love in Earnest represents the respectable face of the poet. Although the topic is love, the actual gender of the loved one is left discreetly vague", p. 283) but some of it is tongue-in-cheek commentary that we can't really do anything with. Does anyone else want to take a look? Haukur (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I still maintain that we don't meet GNG or NBIO. A Road to Stonewall doesn't sound like in-depth coverage. D'Arch Smith is still pretty fringey for a lot of stuff, and I think he would profile any 19th century pederast. So I don't think he counts much towards notability. Joy of Bad Verse, while 9 pages long, it sounds to me from your description like a lot of that is occupied by the poems and by humorous commentary, so actual coverage on the man doesn't sound that great. The Hobby Horse may, despite its age, be our best source, but it is still just one book review. A couple other sources were mentioned above, but the problems with those have been pointed out (however, I guess Sexual Heretics does have 3 paragraphs on Nicholson - don't know how I missed that - but that still isn't a lot). At this point, we seem to be at 4 (including myself) in favor of deletion and 2 in favor of keeping. I will ping Genericusername57, Flyer22 Reborn, and Johnpacklambert to make sure they see the latest findings here, so if they wish to change to keep, they can do so. If it stays at 4-2, and given the discussion had, I'm not sure if that would be enough to count as a consensus for deletion for the closer; but I would prefer to see another week of discussion rather than a no consensus close. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating and summing up. Your comment is a model of clarity. To add a bit: You can check A Road to Stonewall for yourself on the Internet Archive – you may need to create an account but that's quick and easy. I'll also happily send you the Joy of Bad Verse chapter if you want, that way you don't have to rely on my summary. The only thing I think I see differently here is the "he would profile any 19th century pederast" part. The thing with notability is that that's how it's created. If an eccentric scholar publishes detailed research on an eccentric topic then, ipso facto, that topic is now more notable than it was before. So it's possible that D'Arch Smith made Nicholson notable. Haukur (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, you may as well send me the chapter. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the excerpt. It seems to me to consist of maybe 4ish paragraphs about Nicholson directly, with the rest being poetry quotations and commentary on those that we can't do much with, at least in terms of supporting article content. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources. Also, because of all the reasons that Crossroads1 mentioned above. Love in Earnest reads like advocacy. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source comment. This whole discussion seems to hinge on the value of Love in Earnest (1970) by D'Arch Smith. The argument that it can be dismissed as a source seems to be that you can find snippets in it that may suggest sympathy with pedophilia. The argument that it is nevertheless a suitable source is that it is used by others. It has some 150 citations on Google Scholar. A search for it there or on Google Books or on Internet Archive reveals that it is cited again and again in mainstream research on gay literature. Sometimes it's even explicitly recommended to readers, as in a book I cited above. If it's good enough for scholars in the field then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. On a more personal note, I really can sympathize with the desire to delete the Nicholson article. To abandon the dispassionate tone for a moment, I find Nicholson to be an unpleasant person to think about and reading his poems is nausea-inducing. But Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't write unpleasant people out of history. The Nicholson article has a number of incoming links, including from The Importance of Being Earnest. We would be serving our readers poorly by deleting it. We should, however, improve it and it should certainly be no hagiography. Haukur (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I still think Love in Earnest (1970) is comparable to Rind et al. 1998. Both sources have use by others for mainstream purposes, and both have questionable content. Such a source would have to be used carefully; and I commented above on why I don't think it contributes to notability. I agree with you that if kept, the article should be improved and hagiography should be avoided. I have found that in the past Wikipedia has been used to promote or whitewash persons like this. But to be clear, I would not have nominated this simply because I don't like this person (though I absolutely do not). If someone is like this and is notable, better to have an article on them, so others may know how these people are - know thy enemy. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. MER-C 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. David Wu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article. Doesn't passws WP:GNG Zinzhanglee (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC notability guidelines due to having held a named chair. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked his CV [13] and the endowed chair was separate from being dean, so it does count. (Sometimes an endowed chair is given for an administrative position rather than scholarship, and those don't count towards notability, but this appears to be one of the ones given for scholarship.) His Google Scholar profile [14] shows an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1, with many heavily cited publications. And the previous deletion was for copyright violations and promotional writing, not for notability, so it has no bearing on this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar profile doesn't seem curated; it includes papers by other people in other fields. For example, none of the top three are actually by the article's subject. Two include as co-author an S. L. Wu who is a physicist [15][16], and the third is a cellular biology paper with three Wu's on the author list, none of them S. David [17]. The fourth paper in the GS list is by this S. David Wu, but the fifth was co-authored by Sizong Wu. There's probably enough left after a more careful filtering to still pass WP:PROF#C1, but the WP:PROF#C5 case for the named chair is simpler. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - provost at a major university, named chair. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF specifically WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5.Note nom blocked for sockingPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Draft:Ellamman temple. Tone 17:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellamman temple[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of no real importance to WP. Fails WP:GNG Beasteggs (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominated for AfD less than a half hour after its creation, the article is unsourced and definitely needs work but hits come up searching for it, "Ellai Amman Temple," and other variations in English, and I haven't searched for it in any other languages, either. It's potentially notable with some care. SportingFlyer T·C 04:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The temple is dedicated to the goddess Ellaiamman. There are many such temples in Tamil Nadu, so it can be slightly hard to find the correct references. We need to find the temple in Triplicane. I searched but I have been unsuccessful. Perhaps someone else might want to try?--DreamLinker (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:DRAFTIFY - since the article is new, moving to draft space as an ATD would give time for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources can be found - my feeling is that this is a non-notable local temple of no arcitectural importance (see WP:NBUILD) and that notability will not be established through significant coverage in reliable sources and it will be deleted under WP:G13 - Epinoia (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Manukyan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

* Russian jazz musician without signs of significance, awards or authoritative references.--Заслуженный шашист (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He collaborated with other musicians, as all musicians do. He won a "sympathy" (sic., emphasis added) award. Really. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MGN Online[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. No independent sources, all references are related to their own press releases. Style of writing indicates that there is a conflict of interest, and one suspects paid editing. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Garden-variety WP:CORPSPAM failing WP:NCORP.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Anima[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY, only junior international matches and no information on the league(s) she played in. Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: thank you for reviewing the article but you can find information on the league(s) here, 2012 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup and the 2014 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup.--Celestinesucess (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The squad page says (without providing sources) that the team was Ash Town Ladies, which does not help me unfiortunately to establish notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any sources that meet GNG. – Levivich 02:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per references added. RL0919 (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Wible[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

apparent promotional article. No clear evidence of notability. Her books are self-published. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I cleaned up the article a little and added the many references about her and her work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references provided indicate that she has received sustained and widespread coverage for her work. Mccapra (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Burns (businessman)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability -- all refs are either trivial, or about the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL. The page is filled with trivia, such as his house was listed for sale. His name is Mr. Burns, but not that Mr. Burns. Really. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see your point, but that's why I made the page a stub. Burns is the cofounder of MagicJack, which is a pretty notable accomplishment, but I’ll defer to the community. JP Miller1 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction to fictional characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main lede is sourced to someone's random Wordpress blog. The article is a large collection of WP:SYNTH from varying sources that say different things, put together by the author to make a claim.

Claims attraction to fictional characters is a "paraphilia" - which doesn't make much sense in my opinion - fails to distinguish between finding fictional characters attractive and believing them to be real people, which are two very different things. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be honest, I was concerned that this may run foul of WP:SYNTH or WP:NEO(initial article name was Fictosexuality). There are only two sources in my first draft, Yule et al. and the Griffiths's blog Yule cited, and then the rest was synthesized to the stub. I agree that paraphilia is not an appropriate definition, but I found no other reliable definitions.
Sorry to say, it was too soon to make an article. Even if this article meets WP:NOTE, it's difficult to go together the two policies above. It would rather far easier to improve Nijikon, though outcome will still implicate less than what fictosexuality could mean. --LT sfm (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I add that Toonophilia (There is evidence of deletion in 2005) is formerly redirected to Other specified paraphilic disorder. I think it's more appropriate to be redirected to Nijikon. --LT sfm (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that "toonophilia" should exist as a redirect seeing as the target article(s) don't actually discuss it at all. It will just result in the searcher not finding what they're looking for, and a Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources. Seems to be just as much of a neologism now as it was in 2005. "Attraction to fictional characters" is far too vague to ever redirect to Nijikon, which is attraction to anime characters in particular._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nijikon was redirected to glossary of anime and manga by ZXCVBNM the day before this AFD was opened, so I reverted that. This could be added to the discussion though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "someone" is Professor Mark Griffiths, for reference, who is not really random. Yes, it is a bad idea to title this as another neologistic -philia word. For why see Mikulak 1998, p. 251 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMikulak1998 (help) which mentions the fluid meanings of "animatophilia", "toonophilia", and "furryphilia" and cites Langer 1993 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLanger1993 (help) which coined "animatophile" non-sexually.
Mikulak 1998, p. 202 also discusses how the disagreement over the sexualization of cartoon characters in cartoon fandom split a Usenet newsgroup (alt.tv.tiny-toon). Sexualized cartoon characters were also part of the mob-distributed Tijuana Bibles of the 1930s (Kerekes 1995, p. 4). The sexualization of cartoon characters really does not fit as yet another rubbish -philia (c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climacophilia and, indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toonophilia) and we already have the likes of furry fandom#Sexual aspects.
Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mikulak, Bill (1998). "Who owns Looney Tunes?". In Sandler, Kevin S. (ed.). Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813525389.
- Langer, Mark (June 1993). "Animatophilia, Cultural Production, and Corporate Interests: The Case of 'Ren & Stimpy'". Film History. 5 (1): 127–141.
- Kerekes, David (1995). "Thrill to stories of graphic lust!". In Kerekes, David; Slater, David (eds.). Critical Vision: Random Essays & Tracts Concerning Sex, Religion, Death. Headpress. ISBN 9780952328803.
Delete If you are attracted to real people, you can be attracted to a picture or animated version of them, this isn't a disorder or anything that needs to be named. If they are drawn to have more desirable characteristics than a normal person would most likely have, then people would naturally be attracted to them. Dream Focus 15:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reference list, Uncle G. On theorizing otaku sexuality or sexualization of characters, there is some literature in Japan, such as by Tamaki Saitō and Hiroki Azuma (See also Moe (slang)). But it should be careful to use them since their theses are particular to Japan's social context.
I removed and fixed problematic paragraphs. I admit some more problems in my writing, but assume it's still a noteworthy topic. Since identified by many writers, you can't say the attraction shouldn't be named or documented only as it's common to many people. The difficulty is absence of an inclusive term, but Mikulak 1998 can be a glue for cluttered slangs instead of Griffiths 2012. Composition of Attraction to transgender people (former Transsensual) seems a good example. If discussion expanded based on Mikulak is called WP:SYNTH, then it can't be helped. (The title seems important. The present article name is most inclusive and neutral, while Toonophilia has some accademic refferences.) --LT sfm (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paraphilia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy-cicle (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Attraction to fictional characters" is a far too vague title to be considered a paraphilia. That could describe anyone with a crush on a TV or movie character, which is fairly common and not at all unusual._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Fictional characters could include live-action characters, celebrities, Idols. Attraction is also vague. It could be general and non-sexual, like Fandom. The article should have been left in draft due to being an essay (see WP:NOTESSAY) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe an attraction to a fictional character should be automatically classified as a disorder so I very much disagree with the redirect proposal to paraphilia. I agree with everything that AngusWOOF wrote, and with the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Fictional characters" is too broad here per the above comments. On a side note.... there were (and still are) lots of fans of David Bowie's role as the "goblin king" from the movie Labyrinth. Are we expected to believe that this is a type of sexual paraphilia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find a proper source, this should Redirect to List of paraphilias under the term "Fictophila", as the concept seems to be in RS discussion but without any name attached. But if we can't, then Delete. --Masem (t) 16:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems pretty clear consensus here that the sources proffered and the long list of links are not adequate to establish notability. The book mentioned by Haukur may meet notability criteria but that does not imply this topic does. A redirect to the work article can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Konstantin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD closed with "no consensus." There are only two sources that meet reliable sources guidelines, (1) a CBS story that describes the subject's retirement from that station, and (2) a Huffington Post article about his work with drowsy driving. Most of article appears to have been written by the subject; I've removed some trivia and fluff, (school GPA, "Who's Who" lists), but most of the article's remaining content is sourced from primaries (sites that the subject maintains or is affiliated with). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write this article. I did add two things to it when prompted to do so by another editor. Whomever wrote it, did appear to take lots of the factual information from my websites, or from Biographies posted online by various former employers such as KUSI, KGTV, KFMB TV stations, and publishers of the books I wrote, or articles written about me.
Ohnoitsjamie appears to say that a copy of official document does not appear to verify a fact if the copy, or photo, was cited as it appeared on my personal website. So, when the City of San Diego issued the proclamation making April 6, 2019 "Phil Konstantin Day" in San Diego, it does not count as a valid source if a copy of the actual document is posted on my website or Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2139602779390175&set=pcb.2139602829390170&type=3&theater . In that case, none of the various magazine article I have written would count, even though I have photocopies of the actual articles on my website, even if they include the magazine's name and date of publication. For example, a magazine article of an interview I did with Stephen King. It is not a transcript, but an actual scan of the original article: http://americanindian.net/Articles/Stephen_King_1987.pdf . There are over a dozen examples on this page of photocopies of original articles: http://americanindian.net/articles.html
April 16, 2016, I was added to the Sam Rayburn High School Hall of Honor - https://www1.pasadenaisd.org/cms/one.aspx?portalId=80772&pageId=33216433
A photocopy of an article written about me: - http://americanindian.net/Articles/Dreams_Of_Ancient_People_2002.pdf
" The links to NASA/IBM articles aren't particularly useful as they don't specifically mention you or your involvement. OhNoitsJamie Talk"
Photocopy of commendation letter I received while working in NASA's Real Time Computer Complex (RTCC) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston during Skylab. http://americanindian.net/skylab.jpg
Photocopies of my NASA ID cards while working during Apollo 17 and Skylab - http://americanindian.net/ScanMarch2016002.jpg
Four brief articles from an outside sources saying the RTCC was, in deed, part of Mission Control in Building 30 at NASA. https://www.mannedspaceops.org/history/mission-control-center/ - https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_realtime.html - http://max.q.pagesperso-orange.fr/apollo/infra/rtcc_eng.htm - https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/going-boldly-what-it-was-like-to-be-an-apollo-flight-controller/
So, if photocopies of actual documents don't count as valid sources, then not much of what was written about my can be verified in any other way other than by the memories of other people, or by contacting the sources cited.
Here is a video of one of the organizers of Spacefest ( https://www.spacefest.info/II/ ), and the former Director of the San Diego Air & Space Museum (and me) telling Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan that I helped run the computers at NASA in Houston during his Apollo 17 flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fzo1t66U_s ..
Here is a video of a news broadcast where they talk about me working at NASA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWlNllXC9ZI&feature=youtu.be
Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
North County Times & Californian articles about me on Newspapers.com - https://www.newspapers.com/image/577935502/?terms=%22phil%2Bkonstantin%22 and https://www.newspapers.com/image/579477815/?terms=%22phil%2Bkonstantin%22
New York Newsday positive review about my website americanindian.net as it appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer on December 16, 1999 - https://www.newspapers.com/image/102397771/?terms=%22phil%2Bkonstantin%22
In Iowa City Press Citizen - Dec 1, 1999: https://www.newspapers.com/image/206896127/?terms=%22phil%2Bkonstantin%22 -
Sun Sentinal in Fort Lauderdale, FL - https://www.newspapers.com/image/238832697/?terms=%22phil%2Bkonstantin%22
A search on the website newspapers.com for "Phil Konstantin" revealed over 350 different newspaper stories where I was quoted as a "spokesperson" for the California Highway Patrol. Many of these were (obviously) in California. But, they were in newspapers all over the country.
https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22phil+konstantin%22
Newspaper articles on the lawsuit against Pasadena, Texas which declared their election fees unconstitutional. - Feb 8, 1973
https://www.newspapers.com/image/435791247/?terms=%22morris%2Bkonstantin%22 - Victoria Advocate,
https://www.newspapers.com/image/46705793/?terms=%22judge%2Bjohn%2Bsingleton%22 Vernon, Texas Daily Record
https://www.newspapers.com/image/23005752/?terms=%22judge%2Bjohn%2Bsingleton%22 Baytown Sun
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 2019-09-03 04:19:43 (UTC)
Delete - even if every word is true, this person fails to meet WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Much of the information is badly sourced, or unsourced. The rest are claims of notability by association or vague generalities. This seems to be a great guy, but his work was ordinary in the big scheme of things. If reviews of his Dummy or other books could be found from major sources, then I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Review of This Day in North American Indian History in Publishers Weekly - https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-306-81170-8
Mention of "Wacky World of Laws" by Jeff Isaac and Phil Konstantin on NBC Today Show - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW63zyzE4Tc&feature=youtu.be
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 2019-09-04 03:16:28 (UTC)
Delete - lots of mentions, but no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Investigating. This Day in North American Indian History meets WP:NBOOK. It got reviews in at least five publications of acceptable quality: Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Wild West, Booklist, and Library Journal. WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews so this passes with flying colors. I'll look into the other books. Haukur (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I didn't find anything more for the other books. Some reviews for The Wacky World of Laws are already in the article and may be okay. But Konstantin is only a co-author here so we can't count that book as heavily. Of the other sources, the HuffPo article is quite decent but maybe not enough to bring us over the line. The sources accessible on 'newspapers.com' might suffice but I can't access that resource yet. But as it happens I have recently applied for a Wikipedia Library Card for newspapers.com which will hopefully come through early next week. Could we have an additional week to figure this out? Haukur (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Haukurth's request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the for what it is worth, there are also to 360+ photos I have released into the public domain or under a CC license so they could be used on Wikipedia. You can see a list of most of them on my user page here: User:Philkon . This is just FYI. Phil Konstantin (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Phil Konstantin[reply]
I have the newspapers.com access now so I think I have the whole picture. There is an abundance of reviews and other coverage related to This Day in North American Indian History and its website precursor. That is by far the most wiki-notable thing Phil has done. I think a very reasonable solution would be to write an article on the book, which could have a paragraph on the author, and leave Phil Konstantin as a redirect there. Haukur (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that nobody has mentioned the 3,100 videos I have on YouTube. They have been viewed over 2,100,000 times.Phil Konstantin (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that's not something we can make much use of here. Belle Delphine has 5 million views on her latest video alone but is still a redlink. But I'll see if I can get to writing about your book today. Haukur (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now written a short but decently-sourced article on This Day in North American Indian History. That's a suitable redirect target. Haukur (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced article meets notability guidelines.BigDwiki (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Bad faith view, per several administrators. Killer Chihuahua 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is ongoing at WP:ANI under Wikihounding, false_accusations

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note to AfD closer; note that this user is apparently upset that I challenged their POV editing on another articles, and is now stalking my only current AfD noms. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer; note that this user has a history of blocks and evading blocks and continues to make false allegations against editors. User also has a history of improper AfD nominations. BigDwiki (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Datta, stop this. Take your arguments to WP:ANI. BigDwiki, if I see you arguing this anywhere else, I WILL block for hounding. Puppy has spoken. Killer Chihuahua 13:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User:Ohnoitsjamie Should not have maligned me by adding his/her comments to my vote. I am obligated to respond when attacked by another editor.BigDwiki (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the ACTUAL F. Can you not read and follow simple directives? I told you NOT to continue this here. I told you to put your response on ANI. You have NOT posted any response on ANI and you HAVE continued to WP:BATTLE here. You are on thin ice. Killer Chihuahua 14:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killer, So, let me get this straight. I place a simple vote on this article, User:Ohnoitsjamie maligns me and accuses me of "wikihounding". I respond, making similar and equal accusations in defense...and it's ME you're threatening with a block? BigDwiki (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is KillerChihuahua blocking BigDiki's comments? Phil Konstantin (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message me on my talk page. Pretty simple answer to this. BigDwiki (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person has done a lot of interesting things, but we don't have the independent, substantive biographical sources to put it all in context so a proper article can be written - hence this doesn't meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weeding through the trash there is a single piece from the Huffington Post that might be significant. A quick look around the internet turns up exactly that piece, and nothing more. Everything else about him is either trivial (he gave statements to the press a few times), or self published. I am not convinced that anything except his work for the California Highway Patrol is not a hoax. Rockphed (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, come one, that's completely uncalled for. I agree that Phil doesn't meet the notability bar but there's nothing here to indicate a hoax of any sort. Certainly This Day in North American Indian History is a very real book which got very real reviews. Haukur (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - I saw the article on This Day in North American Indian History, which was reviewed by a few periodicals, although nothing major. He, and the book, are real. However, this bit of information doesn't change my mind yet. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-------

OK Rockphed, what parts do you think are a HOAX? It is one thing to not think the page about me is worthy for inclusion. It is a totally different think to call it a hoax. Phil Konstantin (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I suppose what I said could be interpreted as calling the article a hoax, that was not my intention. My intention was to point out that almost nothing in this article is verifiable. As Bearian points out, we can verify him as an author of a book and can verify a few particulars of his recent employment and activity. Everything else is either sourced to the man himself, sourced to people who got their information from the man himself, or sourced to images provided by you. With sufficient time I could generate similar documentation that I set foot on the moon, married a martian princess, and am the true heir of Lenin. Rockphed (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sure, I guess you could claim I didn't work at NASA, and faked (or someone else faked) my ID cards and certificates because there is no official NASA "alumni" publication listing all employees and contractors that ever worked there. Sure, I guess all of the copies of official documents could have been constructed and then posted publicly for decades (without any public outcry for them being faked) in order to create a fake persona. There are, however, dozens of broadcast videos of me on television in San Diego which still exist. That includes the anchors introducing me by name. Contact the news directors at the ABC (KGTV) or CBS (KFMB) affiliates, or KUSI-TV in San Diego, and they will verify I was there, and did what the article claims I did there. There are literally hundreds of newspaper articles from all over the country showing I was a spokesperson (and officer) for the California Highway Patrol. There is at least one feature editorial which the San Diego Union-Tribune requested I write, which could be found in their files. Good luck on finding anyone else in the United States who spells my name the way I spell it. My original website has been in existence since about 1996. That can be verified by internet archives. My name is on the outside of the main library in Pasadena, Texas. Anyone can go there and see it themselves. My lawsuit which declared an election law in Pasadena unconstitutional can be verified through the Federal Courts in Houston. Anyone could contact the city of San Diego to see if they actually did declare April 6, 2016 as "Phil Konstantin Day". This reminds me of the several Wikipedia editors who kept saying my photos of famous people at KUSI-TV were screenshots, until I posted over 100 photos of me with those famous people. So, your use of the word "hoax" is inappropriate, and I take personal offense at it. If you want to say "unverified by numerous outside sources", then that would be less offensive to a real person who did do 99% of the things which someone else wrote in the article. Phil Konstantin (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Wanchoo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 05:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 05:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm trying hard not to let the poor penmanship of the "article" cloud my judgment, but Wikipedia is not a list of people connected to the only instance of something somewhere. An article needs to demonstrate the impact of its subject on the world around it, i.e. why one hundred years from now, people must remember the subject of this article. Perhaps being chosen as one of the young global leaders fits the bill, but I cannot find a source for that, let alone verify that "young global leader" is not a poor metaphor. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Scherban[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. He never played professional hockey and while he has honours at college (First All-Star and Player of the Year), CIS/U Sports doesn't actually qualify to pass #4, or in the very least it is not listed. He also coached in U Sports but this, I don't think, is enough for him to pass. But per usual, if I am wrong let me know. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have mixed feelings. He doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG. However, winning the annual award for being the best college hockey player in Canada seems to meet WP:NCOLLATH. I'd like to see what others think.Sandals1 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment, a Google seach returns more results about his coaching career than his playing career. However those articles are from the Thunder Bay area. Flibirigit (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that being the Canadian college hockey player of the year meets WP:NCOLLATH criteria #1. I might feel differently if it was a different sport, but hockey is a big deal in Canada (duh!). Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CIS's Sullivan Trophy could clear COLLATH #1 if it were reliably sourced, but it is not a notability freebie that exempts him from having to have any acceptable sources just because you can technically source the fact to a list of the award winners on CIS's own self-published website. "Notability because award" attaches to awards that get media coverage, and not to awards that do not, especially given that even the CIS list just mentions his name, and fails to say anything of substance about him. We do still have to be able to verify everything else the article says about him too, so people are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because the article text has the word "award" in it. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about the sourcing of him winning the Sullivan Trophy. My search found articles from the college, the conference, the CIS, and mentions in articles about other Sullivan winners. Not necessarily great coverage, but enough to confirm he did win the award and that it matters to Canadian college hockey fans. Except for organizational size and influence, I'm not sure of the difference between this award and NCAA player of the year awards. Papaursa (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles from the college, the conference, the CIS" are primary sources, not notability-conferring media coverage — the degree to which an award constitutes a notability claim for its winners is always strictly coterminous with the degree to which media outlets publish journalism which reports the winning of that award as news. An award that gets journalistic coverage in real media is a notable award, but an award that has to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, because journalistic coverage about it in real media is non-existent, is not a notable award. It's the same as the reason why over in the film domain the Academy Awards are notability-makers, while the Young Artist Awards are not: the Academy Awards get broad nationalized and internationalized media coverage which reports their nominees and winners as news, and the Young Artist Awards don't. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCOLLATH. Winning this would undoubtedly been covered in newspapers and not just primary sources, the most minor of hockey awards even at the college level in Canada end up with news blurbs. Unfortunately it was 15 years ago so finding internet based sources will be harder so going to newspaper archives may be required. This is precisely the type of article that is supposed to benefit from the help of NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, precisely the problem is that real notability-supporting media largely don't cover CIS sports in anything even approaching the depth or volume that American college athletes can sometimes, but still not always, show. So we can't just assume that the necessary coverage "undoubtedly" exists — in Canadian media vis-à-vis the CIS, it often does not. WP:NEXIST requires you to show actual evidence that the necessary depth and range and volume of media coverage definitely does exist, and is not a compelling keep argument if all you do is speculate about what possibly might maybe exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCOLLATH. As Djsasso says, this is the type of case that the specific notability guideline is supposed to simplify by avoiding the needs identify specific instances of coverage meeting GNG where there is consensus that the subject meets criteria that would cause it to meet GNG. There is also an argument above to ignore the primary source that he meets NCOLLATH. This is a misreading - all we need in this case is a reliable source and primary sources can be reliable. But regardless I did find a reliable secondary source from the Edmonton Journal. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs don't exempt people from having to have media coverage; they clarify the types of things that constitute notability claims if they're supported by media coverage, but do not exempt a person from having to have media coverage to support them. The notability test is always the depth and breadth of sourcing that can be provided to support the things the article says, and never just the statement itself without properly sourcing it. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs provide a presumption that the subject meeting the SNG has the necessary coverage. The presumption can be refuted, but it hasn't in this case. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What hasn't been shown in this case is any discernible evidence that he does have the necessary coverage. Even your clipping is not a journalist-written article about Joel Scherban, but just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a statistical table on the sports-scores page — which means it isn't even a notability-supporting source at all, let alone an instant notability clincher. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCOLLATH.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zahida Allen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable reality tv participant Jamesbuc (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jamesbuc You seem to be on a campaign to delete these articles, but are not clear in your nomination rationale about why they are non-notable and why you are not even considering WP:ATDs. As with the others, she meets WP:ENT #1: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. You've written elsewhere that with so many people being in multiple notable shows that this shouldn't count, but those are the guidelines. I'm not a fan of reality shows but it's not about whether we think they should meet them or not, it's about whether they do. She is also the winner of a notable accolade/award, winning the Miss Earth England title; most holders of the title also have articles, it's one of the most notable pageants. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems to be quite well known and a summary Google search returns quite a few articles specifically about her.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Of course, those sources are less than stellar, seeing how this is a reality show star and model, she's not gonna get mentioned in the New Yorker any time soon, but I think she definitely qualifies on notability grounds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PraiseVivec (talk • contribs)

References

^ Hughes, David (16 August 2017). "INTO THE MIX: Who is Zahida Allen? Geordie Shore new girl and Ex On The Beach star". The Sun. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Hardwick, Jack (23 August 2018). "'Zahida was a cancer mentally destroying me' Sean Pratt lifts lid on horror EOTB romance". Daily Star. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Foreman, Polly (1 February 2017). "Who is Zahida Allen? Everything you need to know about the Ex On The Beach star". Heat World. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Terry, Georgiana (31 May 2017). "Geordie Shore's Zahida Allen issues public apology following last night's show". Heat World. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ "zahida allen takes down a troll who claims abbie holborn has had too much 'work' done". MTV.com. 16 January 2019. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

Delete The sources listed are astronomical papers in England, which I think means they are tabloids. I don't think we should use tabloids to prove notability. Further, I don't think that being yourself in a reality show (or even multiple reality shows) is enough to establish notability. Rockphed (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable - does not satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:ENT - has not had significant roles in multiple notable television shows or other productions - the coverage is promotional, sensational gossip to promote the reality show, not in-depth coverage - run of the mill for someone appearing on TV - (no one seems to know how to handle these minor reality show performers - three have recently come up that I have seen, Sarah Goodhart, Maria Fowler, and Nicole Bass (television personality) - Sarah Goodhart was deleted and redirected, Maria Fowler was kept (she seems to be better known for her suicide attempt than her performing), Nicole Bass is still up for deletion and has been relisted twice for additional comments - Zahida Allen seems to have less claim to notability than the others so a delete seems reasonable, perhaps a redirect to Geordie Shore (series 14) like Sarah Goodhart, but a delete is preferable) - Epinoia (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although she has gotten a little tabloid attention.Strandvue (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Norton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or WP:JOURNALISM. Coverage appears to be brief mentions such as this Derek Ford book and this WaPo article, and/or non-independent, such as this Max Blumenthal book (Max Blumenthal is the article subject's co-host). Most of the links in the article are written by the subject himself, but I can find no in-depth, independent, secondary reliable sources written about the subject. Note recent discussion at WP:BLPN#Ben Norton. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources in the article seem to independently pass WP:GNG, and though my before search was cursory, didn't see anything which suggested he would pass WP:NAUTHOR, either. Willing to reconsider if sources or book reviews are shown, or, in the alternative, if someone can prove he passes WP:NFOOTY. the last part of that sentence is an in-joke with the nominator, who I frequently disagree with over at the sport AfD lounge. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not be sourcing articles to a writers own works and bios published by their employers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments above. I do not see any significant coverage by independent sources. The few brief mentions in the secondary source articles do show sufficient notability. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a major journalist.Strandvue (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of substantive independent sources. Guy (help!) 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem that I see is there's lots of writing by him, but not about him. He seems to change jobs a lot. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus on whether this topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards, nor whether this topic would be better covered in its album article. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gone (Kanye West song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not meet WP:NSONG. The content can be incorporated into Late Registration article or this page deleted with no merging as the content seems trivial. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → the only mention of the song was because of a viral video, which made it to re-enter the charts.

2) "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article about the pertinent album would be the best solution.01:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)TH1980 (talk)
Keep - I am not seeing that any of the quoted guidelines apply here. The article includes at least 2 sources - a Time article and a Billboard article - about the song that are not album reviews (and there are others, such as this) so (1) doesn't apply. And the article is already more than a stub so (2) doesn't apply. Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: No article is going to stand on one reference, Time magazine, the billboard is regarding the viral video, pretty sure you can merge that. It could be a GA, so it does apply, as anyone can change it to start or whatever, the content means much more. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has multiple references. Rlendog (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about having 1 or 100 references, please read WP:Songs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, the article has multiple references bout the song (including the video - no reason to exclude that) that are not album reviews, and as I pointed out in my original comment, other sources are available. Rlendog (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a viral video. Once more read the WP:Songs.

I've read it. Many times. I suggest you do. Rlendog (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of some fresh perspectives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not individually notable outside of the album. Trillfendi (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not only has the song charted on numerous charts, it was also subject to the published source of the video. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charts only indicate that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. It is a viral video, not an official one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the source, it's a video of this song. Which got significant coverage. So the significant coverage relates to this song. You are making arbitrary distinctions. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable in it's own right for charting years later and not from the hype of an album release. It's not something like ""All 18 Songs From Taylor Swift's New Album 'Lover' Chart On the Billboard Hot 100". Ҥ (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drop frying[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion of non-notable cooking technique, with all refs to own-authored works. As User:Doomsdayer520 notes on talkpage, Wikipedia is not for something cooked up at home one day. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid I must agree. As the nominator mentioned, I reviewed this article for the New Pages Patrol, in which we try to avoid over-nominating new articles for deletion while recommending potential improvements. Also I let this one slide at the time because I know little about the food media. But now that the nominator has issued a similar judgement, this article does indeed look like a technique that a small-time cooking blogger created one day and is trying to promote as something that has been adopted by the worldwide culinary community. See this essay. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irredeemable. Right now, it's spam for a cookbook writer. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A couple of points here. First off, at AFD we don't care about anyone's opinion on Winged Blades of Gothic or Sitush or on any other editor; argumentum ad hominem is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. If someone wants to keep an article, they need to address the arguments offered in support of deletion, not bring up the behaviour of the editors who began the deletion nomination. Additionally, articles can be discussed more than once at AFD if there are compelling arguments that a re-review is warranted, especially if the last discussion was over a year ago.

Now, on the actual argument the thrust of the delete argument is that there are no independent sources about the topic to satisfy WP:GNG. The keep arguments (aside from the aforementioned ad hominem) consist mainly on stating that the subject is important, that it has appeared on the main page and that the article has been worked on and a request for WP:IAR keep (which has been contested). A list of sources (some of which are in the article) has also been presented which have been contested on the grounds that they are not independent from the topic (which has been only vaguely contested by the keeps), blog entries, op-eds and passing mentions. Also, it's been pointed out that appearances on the Main Page do not count towards notability.

On balance, this is a delete case; most people are advocating deletion and in terms of argument strength it does not appear that the "does not meet GNG" case has been adequately refuted - not all sources that satisfy WP:V also create notability per WP:SIGCOV, and it seems like the sources here mostly don't as the more detailed delete arguments have stated. There has been a proposal for redirecting, but DreamLinker's argument that the Meher-baba (sp?) observation is not the main subject that this title could cover speaks against that. If people want to merge content they can ask at WP:REFUND for the article history, and redirects to the disambig page or moving the disambig page currently at Silence Day (disambiguation) to Silence Day can be done at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Day[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT by a few miles or so.

Hardly any coverage in sources outside Meher-baba-universe (i.e. website of his trustee, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al). ∯WBG^converse 20:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can someone explain why this is being relisted? Discussed and resolved as "keep" less than 16 months ago. (see Articles_for_deletion/Silence_Day.) Has anything changed significantly since? Or is this just another attempt to purge non-traditional (i.e., non-christian, non-atheist) religious articles from WP? As a reminder of the reasons to Keep from that earlier discussion:

Strong Keep, sourced and an important religious holiday for those involved, and part of a good Baba collection on Wikipedia.
This and Amartithi are the only two seriously observed religious holidays among followers of Meher Baba the world over.
There is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article.

And maybe why this being relisted? I guess that everybody is damn hell-bent on deleting these Meher-Baba stuff. Can anyone state a new reason for this? A reason not already covered an resolved in the previous discussion? I'd like to hear.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new AfD. Please point to sources covering the event - that's the sole stuff that matters. ∯WBG^converse 21:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Day is not an "event," it is a well documented Religious Observance. It is disingenuous to describe it as an "event." +/-50000 people keep silence every year.
I think your beef is the listing in On This Day, not with the article. Or maybe with the religious nature of the observance. Neither are sufficient reasons for delisting the article.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it's useful to have a look at WGB's history:
This editor has been on what might be called a "Crusade" to remove most if not all articles associated with Meher Baba.
Unhappy with the KEEP outcome of the previous discussion, he's at it again. Perhaps hoping that by sheer persistence he can wear out those who see the value of this article.
COI notice: I have been a follower of Meher Baba for 40 years. A WP editor for (I think) about 9.
I did not object to the AFD's of numerous Meher Baba-related articles where I agreed that there was a case for Non-notable. But I strenuously object to this AFD. There are practically no observances or requirements for Baba-followers (or as WGB frames us, cult-associates). Silence Day is the one exception, and notable for that reason, if no other.
It is not an "event:" no parades or fly-overs, no speeches or sermons, no human-interest segments on the Local News. Just about 50000 people observing the request of a spiritual guide.
WGB now says "[point to] sources covering the event - that's the sole stuff that matters." Actually it's NOT. Baptism is a notable observance, but the 'sources covering the event' would be hard to find. Sources describing the observance, and why it's important are numerous. Maybe not so many as for Baptism, but Silence Day is documented enough -- as the last AFD decided. Nemonoman (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree 100% with WBG's assertion that Silence Day "FAILS:WPEVENT" by a few miles. But I don't know that anyone has ever asserted that it's an event -- except for WBG, as a reason for deletion.Nemonoman (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot write an article w/o relevant sourcing. Hence, we cannot keep it. If you feel that I am exploiting the deletion-workflow to wear others out by sheer persistence, I will ask you to seek for an opinion at WP:AN about my actions (and steps needed to mitigate them, if any). Baptism is a very broad theological concept that has been intensely covered across host of reliable sources and we (thus) have an article about Baptism, the comparison is a red herring. Obviously, Silence day ain't documented enough - Meher Baba stopped speaking from that day on a part. year, that's all that is found in reliable sources about the day. No source covers in details about his' followers maintaining a parallel silence on that very day in his remembrance (which this article is 'about) and like stuff. The article title is itself not found in any RS; why not something more/less fashionable like 'The Silent Hours'? ∯WBG^converse 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*For the record The objections above no longer apply to the improved article. If those are indeed the basis for the AFD, it is now time to withdraw it. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable holiday, no independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Fails WP:N. As per my understanding, the previous AfD was closed based on the count of keep !votes not per WP:NAC and WP:CLOSEAFD that clearly state consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, merge what? There's nil coverage in any RS that documents this yearly occasion. There's not even scope for a redirect, much less for a merge! ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I was concerned seeing that WBG had removed 2 sources from the article after nominating for deletion, on looking at the sources I have to agree that they were junk. One was an op-ed. The other was a scholarly paper that didn't mention the topic of the article.Rockphed (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rockphed No, your instinct was right. As the creator of thie AFD, WBG should not have simply been blanking and removing content without discussion. His actions have been out of process in the extreme, and I am beginning to doubt his good faith. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual to find an article has issues and to deal with some of those issues, such as by removing sources you don't think are valid. Doing that and then nominating for deletion - because that's frequently what's needed to deal with a lack of notability - is not really out of process. It's just two different forms of article clean-up. Content disagreements can be hashed out on the article's talk page, while notability disagreements are resolved here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep I agree with your assessment, which is why I am concerned. The blanking was done IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the AFD, not before.

The AFD process specifically calls out blanking, especially by the nominator, once the nomination is made. Further, it strongly suggests the nominator's problems with an article be surfaced on the article page or talk page before initiating an AFD. Vanamonde, as an an example, recently did a PROD on Avatar's Abode, but first included a notability concern. (Of course, he's since decided to go straight to AFD, because...well I leave others to figure that out.), At least there were a couple of hours for editors to address his concerns. Further Vanamonde properly followed WP guidlines of informing the article's authors. (A courtesy BTW that WGB failed to extend to me, the Silence Day article creator, in his first AFD). By contrast I get called out for bringing this AFD to the attention other Silence Day editors -- like they shouldn't be told about the AFD(!).

These sorts of actions, taken in totality, are suggestive to say the least. In addition, the specific attempts of WGB to purge articles associated with Meher Baba are worth noting. 12 AFDs of Meher Baba- related articles in less than 24 hours^[1] (as found here). And as was noted in one of those dozen AFDs:

"...the nominator is coordinating many recent deletion noms and tags within the Baba universe of articles on Wikipedia, thus attempting to "gut" a notable topic here. As with other pages under this deletion blitz, I am sad to say that I must even mention that I am not in a cult about Baba nor belong to any related organization. I'm an editor who is seeing a topic under "attack", with language and talk-page discussions used for this purpose. I would suggest that all of these noms and deletion attempts be removed because of the bias shown in the communications about these pages: Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)^[2]

You seem to be getting very worked up about motivation. Walled gardens are problematic on Wikipedia and always have been. It isn't uncommon for someone to attempt to break down the wall. In this case, most of the articles seem to have been created by one person, many years ago. Since that person has admitted a COI, there is potentially an even bigger issue that has been hanging over these things for a decade or more. As with hoaxes, just because someone has, for want of a better phrase, "got away with it" for many years does not mean we ignore the issue. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Motivation is an issue here, because it appears to be informing the rationale for accepting or rejecting sources. For example, on a strict reading of WP:V, all the sourced references, including those which have been blanked out of hand, meet verifiability criteria 100%. All come from independent sources based on WP:V. It is the nominator, and others, who are questioning the motivation of those independent sources -- saying that because of their beliefs or POV, they are not reliable. POV is NOT included as a criteria in WP:V, for good reason: it is wrong to impugn a source using motivation as a criterion. In the Meher Baba article, I added many 'unfriendly' references despite a personal conviction that the source was full of shit because they met WP:V guidelines. Since there have been so many Baba-related AFDs initiated by this same nominator, and since the majority of those AFDs impugn the sourcing, and for other reasons outlined above, I point to motivation as key influence in the rationale behind the assessment of source material. The fact that some source authors are Baba followers should not even be brought up in these discussions: yet this has cited been consistently and repeatedly for source rejection, and essentially as the only rationale for deletion. "Hardly any coverage in sources outside Meher-baba-universe (i.e. website of his trustee, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al)." This assessment by the nominator is specifically and provably false, and was even at the time when the article was first AFD'd--Nemonoman (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add to this the talk page conversations between WBG and Vanamonde, the fact that this AFD was a 2nd nomination after WBG's unsuccessful first AFD (despite no significant change to the article), that WBG's first act following this 2nd nomination 'was to remove the SPECIFIC SOURCES that drove the KEEP of the first nomination, etc., that he calls source authors "cult-associates" -- well I think that anyone might forgive me for beginning to doubt the good faith of the nominator. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDEPENDENT. ∯WBG^converse 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have read, in fact, I practically memorized this a few years ago in defense of sources for the Meher Baba GAR. The sources in Silence Day are Independent based on that criteria. For the record, as I stated earlier I have problems with Kalchuri for personal reasons, but not for the facts cited in Silence Day, which meet verifiability standards.

I don't have a good way to say convincingly or to give you proof, but I think you should know that there is no Ministry of Information at work here. There is no Meher Baba Vatican that reviews, censors and approves content, or subsidizes publications, etc. The publishers of the cited materials are independent concerns -- Clearly having a POV, so think of them as spiritual equivalents of the Drudge report, maybe.

There is no "in-house" for these publications. There is no overseeing, thought controlling 'His trustee' (although there is an independent Meher Baba Trust in India responsible for upkeep of his tomb, etc.) Kalchuri, who you characterize as 'one of his closest cult-associates', was just a guy among equals, and while I respected his service, I still called him out in public for things he said and did -- just as I have been called out in public.

These matters are so ingrained in the community that there's not even a person or source that has the authority to say that there is no authority. Baba said on many occasions that he didn't want to start an organized religion, and I can personally verify that his followers are the most disorganized bunch you'll ever see. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can lie better. You were informed of the first AfD, right after the nomination was started using a standard template. And, per policy proposed deletion can be used iff the nominator believes that the page un-controversially and obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, per policy, the sole constraint in renominating a page is in allowing the passage of a reasonable time-span, after it's last deletion discussion; nothing else. Further, I have no clue as to what conversations between me and Vanamonde, you allude to. ∯WBG^converse 12:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix I have now had a chance to calm down and actually review the Silence Day article.

In my opinion it is a very poor representation of its subject. Silence Day is a day of religious observance, the only day of observance instituted by Meher Baba. For his followers, this day has the spiritual importance that Yom Kippur has for Jews, or Good Friday for Christians. It is notable as a religious observance, NOT as an event. As with Yom Kippur or Good Friday, it is observed privately or in small groups; it is a day of solemnity and reverence. Any reader with even a modest interest in Meher Baba would eventually want to link to information about Silence Day, so its inclusion in Wikipedia seems helpful for research and education.

Unfortunately, in its current state, the Silence Day article provides very little useful information. I will be making major changes to the article to improve it over the next few days, and in the meantime I humbly ask for concerned editors to suspend their judgment.

In its current state, it contains way to much information and propaganda about Meher Baba's practice of silence. It needs to be fixed to reflect the importance of the day of observance to his followers. Boy it needs work.

By the very nature of its subject, this article will always be relatively brief, but it can certainly be written to better reflect the importance of the day as a spiritual requirement established by the founder of what is essentially a new religion. And it can be written to reflect facts about the subject, not as a vehicle to be essentially a tract about Baba's silence. Honestly, it needs work.

You can look at my history of (attempting) to improve articles, sometimes fairly successfully. I'm serious and it's likely I can improve the article significantly.

Right now, I'm digging up better references. I know that there are better and more authoritative sources about how this yearly spiritual practice was established and how the day is currently observed by Baba followers around the world. I will need a few days to put my hands on the particulars. Nemonoman (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nemonoman and the work that they are doing on the article. Another 'Save' for Nemonoman! Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Randy Kryn. FYI, I have begun research and I'm shocked by what I've been finding. There are plenty of references, statements, articles and anecdotes about Silence Day that I had never before encountered. Despite being a piss-poor editor compared to many, I think I can fix this. There's a lot to work with. Nemonoman (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe, if your additions are going well, the nominator would consider closing this nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, cease your passive-aggressive behavior. ∯WBG^converse 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main objects of an AfD nomination is to present an article to the editors as an "either-fix-it up or delete it thing". You should be happy when a page that you've nominated is fixed and improved, and remove the nomination with thanks to the editor who has fixed the page. I don't know if this one is at that point yet, but it certainly has a promise from an editor, so I included the sentence "Maybe, if your additions are going well" which includes the word "maybe" as a suggestion in order to end this AfD on a silent high note for all involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way what work has he done? Where are the secondary reliable sources needed to secure a passage of GNG? ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, days before, you asked me to take a look at your history of how things get nasty very quick, when you are in conflict with someone. Now, I need to review your history of improving articles. *SIgh*
At any case, you are spamming a bunch of 'primary literature' and garden-variety-unreliable blogs/videos and non-independent stuff published by an in-house press.
WP:GNG demands secondary independent sources. ∯WBG^converse 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have questioned motivation in this AFD, because the nominator of this article, and others on this thread, seem to have a very flexible view about GNG in regard to articles that they have created or that they like. All WP guidelines are subject to the interpretation of the editors, and what I'm requesting is that these editors will apply the same interpretations to this article as they do to others that share their POVs.--Nemonoman (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBG, I said that because I have done a lot of work on a variety of articles. I don't have a one-point agenda, and I've had to learn how to edit in accordance with WP guidelines on several sensitive subjects. I can imagine who you might think I am, since our first meeting is about AFD of an article that has some personal importance. However, I'm not that guy. I'm a real WP editor.

FYI, I recognize that the sources I am adding are less than ideal. I discuss the problem of sources, and try to defend the ones I'm selecting. in the Silence Day Talk page.

Also I haven't done a ton of editing recently, and the darn interface has changed so much I'm editing like a newbie. I'll get back on the saddle soon. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect at best. I looked over the additions made since this AfD. While they are being made in good faith, they provide no additional evidence of this topic meeting GNG; every one of the sources is affiliated with Meher Baba in some way. I can find no others. If the term is a likely search term, redirect it to "Meher Baba", where "Silence Day" is already mentioned. As an aside, I intend to begin a GA reassessment of Meher Baba when I find the time; the degree of puffery on that page is quite egregious. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, please see Silence Day talk page for a start of discussion about sources.

As for your Reassesment of Meher Baba GA, I agree that it is worth a new look. I worked on the GA process, and it basically squeaked by. I think it's due for another look, based on current state. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemonoman: Your argument there essentially boils down to "we must accept non-independent sources because other sources don't exist, and the topic is important to thousands of people". This is exactly backwards. If the topic is important, independent sources should exist. If they don't, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, what people think about it is quite irrelevant. We do not use sources affiliated with the subject to measure notability. You mention on the talk page that you want to go to arbitration about this. You can go right ahead, but I can tell you the result of that right now; ARBCOM doesn't make policy, and doesn't rule on content disputes. You are talking about a change to our core guidelines, and that will require a community-wide consensus-building exercise. If you wish to undertake that, be my guest; until you do so, however, we must apply policy as written, and that says that sources must be independent to count towards notability. Randy Kryn; you may wish to look through this discussion, and that on the talk page, as you are basing your argument entirely off of Nemonoman's. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for clarifying the matter. There are Independent Sources that identify Silence Day as an essential element of the Meher Baba community. I have seen them, but I haven't got them handy. Working on recovering.

That said, the specifics of the observance are not widely documented outside the community, but well documented by verifiable (internal) sources.

This is similar to other relatively obscure subjects. Consider: some new theory about Dark Matter. It may get a headline [Scientist says Dark Matter Proves Existence of UFOs!] (now it's notable), but the actual new theory may not actually reflect the headline, nor have much independent review or independent sourcing. Still because it's (somewhat) notable, an article that discusses the topic more thoroughly may be justfied, even if it relies on thos sources. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing notability with verifiability. We often use primary sources, and non-independent sources, to cover details that would be otherwise unavailable, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. Nobody here is questioning that. However, those sources do not count towards notability. The topic still has to meet WP:GNG. Once notability has been met, sources that don't count towards it can be used to flesh out an article. There is no evidence that this observance meets GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can neither see independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in the article as it currently stands, nor find any. We do not exist as a PR vehicle for every cult/sect/religion/whatever that may exist (which is why I'm also frequently tempted to break down the many walled gardens that exist on WP relating to yoga gurus etc). - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush I find this comment unfortunate. I am a novelist (I write as "John Speed" -- my books have been translated into 8 languages, etc) and I use WP as a helpful source for lots of facts. I'm writing now about the early days of Christianity, when it was 'a cult,', and I find a lot of help by seeing the way contemporary 'cults' develop by reviewing information in WP. I don't believe it's WP's job to establish that some religions are OK and others are cults. They are subjects to be documented according to standard WP guidelines in my view.

I AM concerned this AFD has the earmarks of a "Purge", not a deletion. That said, I intend to bring the article up to a better standard, and hope for a more objective assessment. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and the policies/guidelines that have been developed to achieve that end. Whether you find something beneficial for your work elsewhere is completely irrelevant - there are other means of research that you could use if Wikipedia did not exist. You will note my phrase was every cult/sect/religion/whatever - I made no judgment regarding which of those might be appropriate in this specific context, and I acknowledge you admit a conflict of interest on the matter. I think you may also benefit from a read of WP:BLUDGEON. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules can easily come into play here: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Keeping this page both improves and maintains Wikipedia, and thus is a common sense exception. Wikipedia has recognized that this topic is important and notable within both the Baba universe and the Wikipedia universe (the page has appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page ten times, on July 10, 2007, July 10, 2008, July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2011, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2013, July 10, 2014, July 10, 2015, and July 10, 2016), and this in-Wikipedia recognition shows that keeping it maintains the encyclopedia. A page which has appeared on Wikipedia's main page 10 times adds to the weight of institutional evidence relating to the need to maintain Wikipedia (a requirement of 'Ignore all rules') and seems enough to trigger an ignore all rules exception. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. Is 10 July some sort of annual slow news day?! - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, Wikipedia's "On This Day" appears to be the primary outside reference. Others, to say the least, are minor. Without WP, this religious observation would be entirely obscure IMO outside the Meher Baba community. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia is not a source, my point was that being used "On This Day" 10 times (that's a lot) puts this article firmly into the "maintaining" language in the WP:IGNOREALLRULES policy and pillar. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meher Baba#Silence where Silence Day is already mentioned, and perhaps information from this article could be used to expand that section - as it stands, the article does not meet WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mea Culpa I have been dissing the content of this article and silently cursing its editors. I just noticed that I created the article, and it hasn't changed much. I was young and naive, but that's no excuse. I know more now and it will be better -- but whether will pass notability is clearly an open question. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Stats at time of relisting 8 total opinions: 2 Keep; 1 Merge; 1 Redirect; 4 Delete.Nemonoman (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, I explained my reasoning on my talk page but essentially it is to see if Randy's IAR, gains any acceptance or not. If not for that this would have been a clear delete consensus. Bet, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the argument, as mentioned above, that while WP:VERIFIABILITY may be met with the largely primary sources available, WP:NOTABILITY has not.Rorshacma (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, this is likely an WP:IGNOREALLRULES case due to the "maintain" language, as the article has been used on Wikipedia's main page 10 times over a period of 10 years. WP:VERIFIABILITY is a policy, and it has been met.WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, although a very important guideline. Verifiability combined with the "ignore all rules" assertion will hopefully silently carry the day. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it, I just disagree with it. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think of this IAR suggestion, the more I think it is misguided. If we've fouled up 10 times in the past then that's poor; perpetuating it is worse. I've no idea of the criteria or selection process for the main page items, nor how much they generate in the way of meaningful clickthroughs, but I suspect this article has got there because of the quirkiness of its subject, not because it has any intrinsic merit. It's a bit similar to the way in which DYK folk like to use quirky hooks. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky or not, it's there, and has been 10 times. Of course many people think there was no foul up but a long-term mention of an interesting page which has verifiable coverage, so that's just moving the discussion to the level of main page dependability which, I just realize, may answer a question I had at the relister's talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the many people who thought there is no foul up? Were they aware of the issues demonstrated by source analysis in this discussion which, to say the least, is obscure because of the walled-garden aspect? We quite frequently get things wrong on the main page or in the queues for it, that much about the process I do know because of the numerous mentions of it in discussions relating to The Rambling Man. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean editors involved in this discussion, but the thousands of readers and the many compiling editors who read the "On This Day" blurb for ten years in a row who acknowledged acceptance of its verifiability. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can verify that I exist and I guarantee that if my bio appeared on the main page there would be click-throughs to it. Most readers would then say "meh". - Sitush (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I recently learned of this second attempt to unnecessarily delete the article on Silence Day, due to what the original poster's claims of unverifiable outside sources. A quick internet search will return many such sources, some of which are listed below, and some are stated as sources in the existing article. Whether the article remains will have zero effect on Silence Day being observed by tens of thousands of people every year.

- https://dailyasianage.com/news/72655/meher-baba-silence-day (in existing article) - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8625404/Sandi-Toksvig-Sssh-its-Silence-Day.html (in existing article) - https://anewlifewandering.com/guide-traveling-meher-pilgrim-retreat-ahmednagar-india/ - https://guttertalkcomicsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/man-behind-magician-meher-baba-and-his.html - https://www.saimeher.com/notes/brief-history-and-details-of-the-silence-day/ - https://www.saimeher.com/notes/silence-day-10th-july-day-3/

To reiterate as stated by others, this article has been listed on the front page of Wikipedia ten separate times on the anniversary of Silence Day.

Silence Day occurs every year on July 10 with many Centers worldwide holding events, and there are many individuals who decide to participate on their own - without any connection to any Center. If the original poster searched the internet they would have easily found the many other results from Avatar Meher Baba Centers that show Silence Day being mentioned and listed as an event on their calendars on a yearly basis. If the original poster has questions about the observance they could simply ask, or they could witness in person next July 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessmaron (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC) — Jessmaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I get the feeling you probably have a conflict of interest here as a follower. Press releases are not independent sources but, given you have only made 2 edits in 8 years, perhaps you were unaware of that - it makes me wonder where you "heard" of this discussion, so perhaps you could elaborate. - Sitush (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCLOSE Yes I am a devotee of Avatar Meher Baba and have participated in Silence Day for many years. I apologize if I didn't follow a protocol known to others since as you've stated I haven't been active as a Wikipedia editor. My not editing articles shouldn't have any bearing on any pertinent contribution. I initially learned from a friend, and there is a notice regarding this article being in discussion prominently displayed on its existing page.

None of the sources listed above are press releases. They are independent articles on different dates, referencing separate occurrences of Silence Day.Jessmaron (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder are blogs etc from adherents and an op-ed from Sandi Toksvig that I have just analysed at the article talk page. Those, too, count for nothing. Please familiarise yourself with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original sources shared are not from adherents and when read you'd understand that to be true. In addition, here's an additional reference to Silence Day from an outside source, which is not a blog, an op-ed, or merely listing the occurrence of Silence Day as an event.

https://www.thefader.com/2017/07/12/sufism-reoriented-cheesecake-factory-california-sanctuary Jessmaron (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the "original sources"? Do you mean the ones that are already in the article, and have you read what I said about Toksvig? And, regarding your new link, do you understand what constitutes a "passing mention"? - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the original outside sources mentioned in my original comment above, some of which are also in the existing article. Yes, I read your comment about Toksvig being a circular reference. In addition to these outside sources, there are hundreds authored by Centers and those individually connected with Avatar Meher Baba. Silence Day will continue to be observed regardless of any recognition on Wikipedia. If it's decided to delete this article, so be it - it really makes no difference to me, solely giving my opinion.Jessmaron (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you were just saying what has already been said. Just as you don't really care about what happens here, I doubt many people care about what happens elsewhere regarding this issue. The difference is, here your opinion counts for nothing unless it is based on policy whereas in the "real world" you can believe whatever you want, hence the Flat-earthers etc. My recent flurry of posts is because I was briefly tempted by Randy Kryn's IAR argument but, after consideration, I think it is pushing things to the extreme and I note that SoWhy, who relisted the first deletion discussion, specifically said that arguments relating to past mentions on the main page count for nothing. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterated only that the article was mentioned on the Wikipedia front page 10 times. I provided additional outside sources since that was the original request from the original poster. I never stated I don't care or don't really care. I said it really made no difference, meaning that it will have no impact on the observance of Silence Day, as was also stated in my original comment. For your convenience here again is the most recent additional source:

- https://www.thefader.com/2017/07/12/sufism-reoriented-cheesecake-factory-california-sanctuary Jessmaron (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem not to have read WP:GNG. Even Randy Kryn seems not to be arguing for retention on that basis. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nemonoman: Please be advised that canvasing is not allowed, as was done here, here and here. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GSS, users Dazedbythebell and Hoverfish are significant contributors to this article. Nosebagbear is an editor who responded to the first AFD. Please Note This: User Wing Blades of Godrick violated standard WP Deletion Policy by failing to state concerns on the article's talk page and providing for remediation before AFDing. So just like May 2018 Afd, this new AFD is effectively a sneak attack. It is entirely appropriate to bring the matter to their attention.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS:Update: I have made some requests for sources on a Meher Baba bulletin board, where I mentioned this AFD. You are likely to note some WP editors coming out of the woodwork as a result. I asked for responses from WP editors who understood WP guidelines. I have run into a number of Baba followers who edit unrelated WP articles. My request made it clear that this was not a poll or voting opportunity for casual users. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph, this The Telegraph source has been found and added to the page by Nemonoman. I knew of this during the first afd but had forgotten. This find falls into the "A source, a source, my kingdom for a source" category, and should establish notability to go along with the many sources which establish verifiability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except I removed it because the only words of the statement that it supported which were verified by the source were "10 July" and "Silence Day". I also left a note about it at the article talk because it is potentially circular and an op-ed, and I've mentioned the same elsewhere here prior to your comment. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source is not removed from the page. And please read the linked source over again, the entire Meher Baba story of Silence Day is laid out in it and not just the date and name. It verifies, from a reputable source, the concept, the history, the annual adherence to the day by Baba adherents (and again let me reiterate that I am not one, I don't celebrate or even remember June 10 as anything like this, and on June 10 I talk all day and into the night), and uses Silence Day as an example of the use of silence. This source can't be dismissed as nonsense, cultish, or a "walled-garden". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained it all on the article talk page already and I've never said you were an adherent/follower/whatever - why does it looks like you are trying to deflect with some sort of strawman?I think you're not showing particularly good judgement about sourcing but, hey, our experiences probably differ. I'm very used to analysing sources and, indeed, finding them: this one is poor for anything and I did indeed remove an entire statement for which it was being used because it only supported four words of that statement, as I've already told you: you do know how to read an article history page, I take it? - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list underneath, things like that. There seems to be quite the effort to give the Baba article collection a housecleaning here on Wikipedia, and words like cult are being thrown about. So of course, as one of the editors voting Keep and giving adequate reasons for it (including the source that you say isn't a source, which comes from The Telegraph, gives a good summary of the topic, and reads like a notability source to me) I feel I have to say for sake of my personal reputation that I am not a follower or disciple of Meher Baba. I've read maybe two pages of one of his books. I do not observe Silence Day, or have a memory of ever remembering it. But you know, this silent holiday seems to be honored by many people who believe this fellow was worth that honor. The topic is unarguably verifiable and, as shown by The Telegraph article, notable. Not only is it fine material for an encyclopedia, but the day itself was duly noted and linked on the front page of Wikipedia for ten years in a row (rules and regs and the extent that common sense exceptions effect them aside, that fact alone turns my head). I personally think that the best honor given Baba (although he probably knew what he was doing, and wanted his fans to develop the will to be silent for an entire day so that they could experience a good pattern-breaking technique) is the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" song. Because of the song's popularity, millions of people and pretend trophy fish went around singing, out loud or in their minds, "Don't worry...be happy". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: It is a cult. OTD is the least maintained part of main-page and we usually don't give a flying fuck 'about it; also, main-pahe has featured at least two outright hoaxes, earlier. ∯WBG^converse 08:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:You reference a 50 year old article behind a pay wall as proof -- of what exactly? I try to follow Meher Baba's teachings. I also try to follow the teachings of Marcus Aurelius. No one is proselytizing in airports or brainwashing young victims -- not for Stoicism or for Meher Baba. Do you have a personal agenda about this topic? I note that you have AFD'd dozens of articles about non-mainstream Indian spiritual leaders. Is there something you should be telling us? Please come clean about your own COIs and POVs. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, Robbins is a sympathizer of Meher Baba and AFAIK, the only sociologist to cover him, in an academic pursuit; you are going after the wrong target .And, any good publication is almost-always behind paywall but I can email you the article, if you want to read it.

I don't know about what COI/POV, you expect me of. Still, if it pleases you, I am an atheist and barring that can't think of any obvious COI. I didn't know of Meher Baba prior to spotting his name across en-wp, have not met any of his followers and I am certainly not funded by any spiritual guru with competing interests (LOL). ∯WBG^converse 12:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:Now I'm confused. This 50-year old article by Robbins is a valid source for calling Baba stuff a cult -> because he is sympathizer? I thought you were saying those sorts of attitudes completely negate reliablity. Did I get that wrong?

You're an atheist (not that there's anything wrong with that), but you didn't think that fact merited a POV or COI mention? While you set to purging dozens of articles on spiritual subjects?

You are free and easy about disparaging others for their beliefs, but have you ever considered your own motivations? Of course you might rationalize that you are following WP guidelines, etc. But many of your own articles are on subjects of doubtful notability with dubious sourcing. Have you ever asked yourself if you are choosing to AFD so many articles, many of better quality, simply because they don't fit in with your beliefs?--Nemonoman (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn - yes, for some reason you do think that an op-ed in The Telegraph by a humorist who is known to trawl Wikipedia for quirky stuff (and uses this particular "stuff" as a hook for a wide-ranging musing on modern life) is reliable, not circular and sufficient to confirm notability. Even if you were right, where is the in-depth discussion of the subject in multiple independent sources? No-one is denying the thing happens. Lots of things happen: here in the UK, there seems to be barely a day or week that isn't appropriated by some body, be it religious, charitable or whatever, but we don't create articles for them all because, well, there really isn't much to say about the things that couldn't be said in the main article for the religion/charity etc. This situation is despite the appropriated days being publicised. and, I suspect, we often don't even mention them in the specific organisation articles. I know you might twist WP:OSE to say that this is an irrelevant comment but my point is that there isn't much said about the event, otherwise we'd have a lot of independent sources really discussing it rather than just touching on the thing, if they mention it at all. You can produce 100 newspaper articles all saying that, say, 10 July 2020 will be Silence Day for those who follow Meher Baba but unless they go into some detail and it is pretty much the same as us accepting press releases or republished newswires as sources indicative of notability (we don't). - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is clearly a new bar -- even if cited in a 100 newspapers, Silence Day would not be notable. You wonder that I question motivation? You are making up Notablity criteria on the fly. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not reading what is said and you lack understanding of our policies. That much is evident even in your various posts here today, which suggests that you are not learning from the links that you have been given for over a week now. 100 brief mentions are no better than one brief mention: we need independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth, not ones that say (paraphrase) "Today is Silence Day. Ever heard of that before?" - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have not seen the specific policies your are referencing. So far as I can tell most of the refs being posted here are to guidelines. WP:V is a policy, and this article clearly qualifies (or perhaps you have found elements that do not qualify? In which case, detail them). The point you raise above is your own interpretation of WP:GNG, and that guideline clearly has some flex. Some editors involved with this AFD are fairly casual about that guideline when it suits them. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemonoman: You can't demand policies that don't exist; WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, but so is WP:N. We don't have policies on notability; we make our decisions based on guidelines. WP:GNG is the basic standard by which we judge notability at AfD. If you wish to ignore it on the basis that it is "just a guideline", feel free; but don't expect a closing adminitrator to give your argument much weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: My answer was to Sitush specifically telling me 'you lack understanding of our policies' in the previous comment. His word, not mine. Also I never said used the words 'just a guideline.' I accept and work within those guidelines. I'm experienced, I know them.

What I'm suggesting is that many editors appear to treat Notability guideline with greater flexibility in some instances, but not in others, based on the article's subject. I myself look into the GNG guideline -- in all cases -- to see how articles may be retained rather than deleted, which I think is best practice, for WP. I believe in WPs wacky inclusiveness. Based on the contributions of others here, I am clearly in a minority. But I therefore I also think that AFDs based on notability should be reviewed strenuously. The Verifiability Policy is an absolute, and easy to assess. Notablity is NOT an absolute.

There are discussions even between editors on this AFD about obscure ways to establish notability for articles they have written. Let's just acknowledge that these guidelines allow for some different interpretations, or there wouldn't be so many 'clarification' pages. Guidelines are not policies with settled case law. That's why AFDs are matters of discussion, not a trigger being pulled by an AI. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I need go no further than to note that this is the SECOND AFD, and that the earlier, much less well sourced version was found to be acceptably notable. This 2nd AFD disagrees with the opinions of those editors. It does not raise any new concerns or present any new facts. It just copies the previous. So this current AFD is proof of my point: Notablity is a matter of opinion. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant seem to find any independent reliable sources that discuss the said subject directly. FitIndia ^Talk ^Mail 06:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
""2 Questions for Discussion It appears that the article talk page is extraneous at this point, so I'll post here:

1. I have reason to believe that there are several detailed Silence Day newspaper articles from India particluarly, 1965-1969. Probably mostly in Marathi. I see reference to non-english sources on WP:V. They will take some effort to get, as hard copies only kept in scrapbooks by old guard in India. Should I even bother?

2. What's wrong with the latest incarnation, recently reverted, of an On this day Screen Shot. See here:: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence_Day&oldid=916199076 --Nemonoman (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Final $0.02[edit]

Keep, for the reasons below.

1. This AFD should not have been made in the first place

The AFD template itself links to this core statement, which the Silence Day AFD is violating:

When to not use deletion process? From: Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process

Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

The "Delete" votes in this debate seem to reflect primarily the very reasoning that is NOT to be used in the decision process -- including disparaging the beliefs of those voting "Keep", and asserting a demand for an unobtainable level of notoriety.

2. This AFD framed the deletion debate with misleading and inaccurate information

By using derogatory language to describe the article's sources. "Hardly any coverage in sources outside Meher-baba-universe (i.e. website of his trustee, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al)"

While the nominator may have issues with these sources, the were reviewed extensively in 2 extended discussions. First in Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 12#Kalchuri as a source, a discussion that got escalated to the RS noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Bhau Kalchuri - Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher). The discussion specifically reviewed the biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates, and further considered the general reliability of hagiography vs biography.

In case you don't want to read all 80,000+ words : Kalchuri, Glow, etc. were sources found to be acceptable for matters of observable fact (dates, places, times) etc. Not OK for asserting statements better qualified as elements of faith (i.e, ok as a ref for "That evening Baba said there is no hell", not as ref for "There is no such thing as hell.")

But this language is highly troublesome, because it states with no evidence that the content is cult-related, and casts doubt on the integrity of the sources, and effectively on the integrity of those defending the sources. Do Keepers want to be identified with this 'cult'?

In fact some editors felt that it was necessary to say explicitly that they are not in 'the cult.'

How many potential Keep commenters walked away or changed their votes for fear of being identified with a 'cult'?

Framing the AFD with these inaccurate presumptions negated unbiased consideration of the article, and votes to KEEP or delete should be looked at critically before closing.

Additionally, by saying that article "Fails WP:NEVENT by a few miles or so."

As the content and references show, the article's subject is not an "Event." It is a spiritual observance.

It has been categorized as a 'Religious Holiday', a sub-sub-category of Events (Events:Religious Events:Religious Holidays). However, none of the articles in this Sub-Sub category would pass WP:NEVENT, a guideline that is specifically geared to addressing events in the news, like a hurricane or mass shooting. Articles in the religious holiday Sub-Sub category are about recurring religious observances, not typically do not reference news items.

See examples of pages in the Religious Holiday Category.

Finally by blanking references known to be relevant

Within in 2 minutes of creating this AFD, the nominator removed the references that had been added as part of the "Keep" decision previous AFD discussion, and one specifically noted by the closer in support of his decision to Keep. (see item 4, below)

The editing reason for deleting that source was "LOL; op-eds and commentary-sections ain't RS" FYI, no discussion was included in the article talk page or the AFD to support this doubtful assertion. There is no specific guideline stating that references to a religious observance are irrelevant if they appear in an op-ed.

Because relevant references were missing debating editors were seeing a version that lacked determinant sourcing, and based opinions on an article specifically modified by the nominator to reflect his 'inadequate sourcing' assertions.

3. The specific concerns about Keep-ing originally enumerated by the nominator were addressed and remedied

Asked to for specifics, nominator asserted that "No source covers in details about his' followers maintaining a parallel silence on that very day in his remembrance (which this article is 'about) and like stuff"

But that is not the case: there are numerous sources for this. This objection was remedied in my article revisions (see refs 4, 5, 6, and article's final quote).

This is an example of how this AFD is improperly being used to deal with an improvable article.

4. This AFD is simply an attempt to re-litigate the earlier "Keep" finding

While no significant changes had occurred following the original Keep AFD of this article, it was renominated. No consquential additional reasons were included in the re-nom.

It may be relevant that the initial AFD was part of a purge of 12 Meher Baba related pages. Most ended with delete or merge decisions -- and Silence Day escaped with a rare "Keep."

Note the language and rationale for those en mass deletions::

"Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess. This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue." In that discusssion, the nominator says "what kind of whacko does write a biography of every person whose sole claim to fame is limited to being mentioned...as someone close to Meher Baba?!" [You can see that discussion here,]

However, that AFD was closed thus:

"Keep - the latter of those sources doesn't specifically aid the article's independent notability, but the original [i.e, the newspaper reference blanked by the nominator], as well as the other sources available do. I feel there is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Again, none of the article sources had been changed, challenged, or removed when this second AFD was listed. No new reasons for the current AFD were given, except for the irrelevant assertion that it fail WP:NEVENT, a guideline that does not logically apply, and has not been applied, to articles of this Religous Holiday category.

It might be concluded that the sole reason for this AFD is the nominator's hope to get a more personally favorable outcome. I see no evidence to support any other reason for this AFD.

Venue shopping is not a behavior to be encouraged.

[Note: because of the mass deletion of relevant articles, links to Silence Day have been lost, creating a sense that is a sort of 'walled garden' article that needs addtional links. It used to have some. Editors of newly merged Baba articles should have time to relink to Silence Day.]

Concerning the relevance of "On this day..." I think this question is a reasonable matter for editors to discuss on a talk page. Its relevance has been raised in both this and the previous AFD, with different opinions. However, the matter is not essential to establishing that this article has met all relevant criteria as a "Keep."

COI Disclosure: I have been a follower of the teachings of Meher Baba for 40 years. I was a leading participant in the debates concerning Reliability of Sources of Meher Baba material. I have come to believe that some sources deemed reliable via the outcome of those debates should be re-evaluated based on new information, but unless and until they are, I believe those sources may continue to be used as reliable sources.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman as per WP:AFDFORMAT please don't repeatedly bold your keep !vote, thanks. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, if you can get those (if this page is removed at some point it can be put back with one or two of those sources). 2) that's a good image. That's the point I can't understand, why a 10-time once-a-year-for-10-years Wikipedia main page item is being questioned for notability (not for verifiability, which is uncontested). An odd way to treat a notable encyclopedia article. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, it's as simple as that. The Telegraph source is a contributed op-ed, actually labeled by the publication as a "personal view". The reason not to redirect is because Baba's Silence Day isn't the only Silence Day. The dab page Silence Day (disambiguation) should be moved to Silence Day if this is deleted. The Baba Silence Day entry can remain on the dab page, with a link to Meher Baba, where the content about Baba's Silence Day can remain available to our readers. – Levivich 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Telegraph page is a "personal" view printed in The Telegraph, which makes the verifiability of the page notable in a major mainstream publication. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, yes, it seems WP:RSOPINION allows for the use of the reliable The Telegraph cite as long as the author is mentioned: "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable information to Meher Baba, then convert into a disambiguation page like Silence Day (disambiguation). The term silence day is very general and there is no particular topic which has a world wide importance. Having a disambiguation page at the general term is useful. As for this particular article, I don't think there is enough content to justify a separate article. The event itself seems to be something which restricted to his followers, judging by the paucity of references. In these cases, information is better presented at the parent article.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other article or day named Silence Day, so it is not a general term. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyepi is a Balinese day of silence or silence day. There is also Day of Silence. The terms "Silence day" and "Day of Silence" are interchangeable and it would benefit to have a disambiguation page at this title.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a disambiguation page with this name, and it is prominently listed in the hatnote, although the page under discussion is the only page with the name Silence Day. 'Silence Day' is upper-cased as a proper name, as is Day of Silence, so there is not problem with keeping the names and pages as they currently exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the reason I think this article is good for a merge (instead of a standalone article) is because there are not enough independent sources. This can be adequately covered in the main article. As for the disambiguation page, Meher Baba's silence day is not the primary topic users expected when they search for silence day. It would be useful to have a disambiguation page at this title.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Southborough, Massachusetts#Public schools. Redirected per policy at WP:ATD-R. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trottier Middle School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable middle school that lacks any citations. Fails WP:ORG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than the usual local news about parent-teacher conferences and school trips, I see no evidence of notability online; it's a ordinary middle school. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southborough, Massachusetts#Public schools. Redirects are cheap. It is so bog standard to redirect nn elementary and middle schools to the school district if its page exists (it doesn't) or failing that to the locality that I respectfully suggest that this could have been boldly redirected. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clarity on whether to delete or redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southborough, Massachusetts#Public schools per CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to James Patterson bibliography#Witch and Wizard series. RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch & Wizard: The Kiss[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un cited article about an un remarkable book. No further information beyond a side bar and lede. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for Witch & Wizard series books:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James_Patterson_bibliography#Witch_and_Wizard_series - I am honestly kind of shocked that a book by a well known author like James Patterson would be so lacking in sources, but I could not find a single review for this book in a reliable source. That said, as the book is listed on his bibliography, it would make a useful redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. I searched ProQuest and newspapers.com and found nothing useful. Haukur (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James_Patterson_bibliography#Witch_and_Wizard_series per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Thompson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Could not find any sources discussing her. The redirect was reverted to an article (as it looked like 8 years ago) because the target Red Riding Hood (2006 film) was deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appearing with notable actors in a non-notable film does not make one notable. Don't get me started on the non-encyclopedic tone of the article which is horrid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NACTOR. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those sources look suspiciously like the sources from Red Riding Hood (2006 film) that I remember prodding. A quick look online makes it fairly obvious that getting the right Morgan Thompson would be a feat in and of itself, much less establishing her notability. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Riding Hood (2006 film) which will be restored at refund to add more sources. She had a significant role in that film and is mentioned there. Reasonable search term. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climacophilia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an alleged paraphilia that does not appear to exist. It has only been mentioned in a handful of "super strange fetishes" lists and in one "super strange fetishes" book, not a single hit on PubMed.

Source 2: List of all paraphilias cited in scientific and lay literature. [...] Sexual arousal may occur from anything under the sun, including the sun.

Source 1 is a blog post by behavioural psychologist Mark D. Griffiths which goes into detail about the sourcing that exists about this paraphilia, he even discusses this very article: The Wikipedia entry seems to imply that the paraphilia exists (it says “rare” rather than non-existent). The entry also says there “hasn’t been a wide body of research” suggesting there is some (perhaps a narrow body of research) – but that clearly isn’t the case. There’s none.

He concludes: I have spent hours online trying to track down any evidence that climacophilia exists and I have drawn a complete blank.

– Thjarkur (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN per nom. While I'm not the biggest fan of using WordPress as evidence of this being a hoax, nor do I think it's completely one, it doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/BJAODN Non-notable and...I have no words I guess except if you still find arousal after tumbling down a flight of stairs...congratulations, I guess? Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest source that I can find, Shaffer & Penn 2006, p. 89 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShafferPenn2006 (help) which devotes six words to this, is contemporary with the 2006-02-15 Urban Dictionary entry that this article was originally sourced to. That was around the time that Wikipedia editors were challenging a multiplicity of articles on supposed -philias and -phobias some of which stuck around for years (c.f. List of uncommon fetishes (AfD discussion), List of fetishes (AfD discussion), Emephilia (AfD discussion), Podophobia (AfD discussion), Chionophobia (AfD discussion), Redophilia (AfD discussion), Orgonophilia (AfD discussion), Dendrofilia (sexology) (AfD discussion), Phygephilia (AfD discussion) and many others). This appears to be something made up around 2006. We have for a decade and a half set a higher bar than sourced-to-Urban-Dictionary, even indirectly. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaffer, Lisa; Penn, Julie (2006). "A Comprehensive Paraphilia Classification System". In Hickey, Eric W. (ed.). Sex Crimes and Paraphilia. Pearson Education. ISBN 9780131703506.
Delete, pollution, nothing more. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Throw down the stairs (or maybe don't, because it likes that), per all above. To add on to Uncle G's comment, there are almost certainly more of these. I recently successfully PRODded katoptronophilia and thalpotentiginy. There are a bunch more similarly dubious -philias scattered around on this template. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be neither a joke nor notable. What ore can I add? Bearian (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, I, too, can only find single line mentions of this term as some 'rare, unheard of' fetish. I can find nothing substantial in Google books that suggests it has been covered in any detailed manner that would meet our notability criteria. At best, this would merit a cited mention in List of paraphilias as that list seems partly based upon Appendix 1 of a 2008 book, mentioned there. But I also note the concerns above, by Uncle G, of post 2006 Urban dictionary terms sneaking in as something notable. As that book and the List article says: Like allergies, sexual arousal may occur from anything under the sun, including the sun.". Anyway, I tried it - and it doesn't work, so, that said, I'm going back to my bathtub! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Stewart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my field, but I notice that references are entirely PR, as confirmed by the degree to which they repeat each other. Minor award listings only . DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. COI already noted here. Judging by their talk page history the article creator seems to have attempted to create other promotional articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she was famous for a news cycle. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Bearian, she is WP:BLP1E, her fame won't last and it doesn't have the sources now to show can pass WP:GNG. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Magak, Chrisphine (12 March 2017). "Kariobangi Sharks name squad for Gor Mahia clash". Goal.com. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

[2] Kiura, Alfred (6 March 2017). "Sharks release team for debut season". Futaa.com. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

[3] Bowes, Peter. "June 25, 2019 - Hanadi Elyan". Peterbowes.com. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

[4] Devjani, Raunak (5 February 2017). "Grad student melds Arab, Hollywood culture through filmmaking". Daily Bruin. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

[5] Kendall, Rebecca (10 June 2019). "Graduating filmmaker strives to tell authentic stories of Arab women". UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved 15 September 2019.

[6] Hughes, David (16 August 2017). "INTO THE MIX: Who is Zahida Allen? Geordie Shore new girl and Ex On The Beach star". The Sun. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[7] Hardwick, Jack (23 August 2018). "'Zahida was a cancer mentally destroying me' Sean Pratt lifts lid on horror EOTB romance". Daily Star. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[8] Foreman, Polly (1 February 2017). "Who is Zahida Allen? Everything you need to know about the Ex On The Beach star". Heat World. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[9] Terry, Georgiana (31 May 2017). "Geordie Shore's Zahida Allen issues public apology following last night's show". Heat World. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[10] "zahida allen takes down a troll who claims abbie holborn has had too much 'work' done". MTV.com. 16 January 2019. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[11] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Master (Meher Baba) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meher Baba's missing book Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eruch Jessawala Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amartithi Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faredoon Driver Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beloved God Prayer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prayer of Repentance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence Day Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhuni (Meher Baba) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Irani Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shireen Irani

[12] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perfect_Master_(Meher_Baba). {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]